Prev: Stephen Hawking and Two Physical Times
Next: Aether is a physical substance
From: Inertial on 6 Apr 2010 05:14

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:997456a7-768a-4852-a4b2-40c5162ff13a(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 11:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b700989e-6773-43a7-b025-f5fdc644e14c(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > As for me
>>
>> >> >> > the Doppler effect
>> >> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
>> >> >> > E=hf
>> >> >> > as the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>>
>> >> >> Please explain how.
>>
>> >> > -----------------
>> >> > thank you igor
>> >> > actually i am surprised that you ask me an apposite question
>> >> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
>> >> > anyway
>> >> > lets thake it step by step:
>>
>> >> > lets take the case in which
>> >> > the observers frame
>> >> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
>> >> > actually it does not matter
>> >> > who is running away from who
>> >> > the only relevant thing is
>> >> > that the distance between them
>> >> > is becoming bigger with time
>> >> > (oops that bloody time again (:-))
>>
>> >> Yes .. you got something right
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
>> >> > right ??
>>
>> >> Yes
>>
>> >> > if so
>> >> > the energy of E=hf becomes smaller
>> >> > rigth??
>>
>> >> Yes
>>
>> >> > so
>> >> > a question:
>> >> > is it is a contradiction to
>> >> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>>
>> >> No .. it is not.
>>
>> >> > or do we have a way to reconcile
>> >> > that apparent contradiction
>> >> > and HOW ??
>>
>> >> There is no contradiction at all. Energy is observer dependent, and
>> >> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames. eg
>>
>> >> KE = 1/2 mv^2
>>
>> >> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is
>> >> observer
>> >> dependent.
>>
>> >> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
>> >> conserved. But that does not mean that the same energy is measured
>> >> for
>> >> all
>> >> observers
>>
>> >> > that is the first step
>>
>> >> And already your ignorance of physics is letting you down. You really
>> >> should LEARN some physics first before having the audacity to attempt
>> >> to
>> >> 'innovate'.
>>
>> > -------------------
>> > (:-)
>> > imbecile !!!
>>
>> That's you
>>
>> > not even a crook
>> > just a psychopath imbecile !!
>>
>> That's you
>>
>> > lets hear more cleaver knowledgeable people !!
>>
>> You just did, when I posted. Does that mean you're not going to post any
>> more?
>
> ------------------------
> psychopath Nazi pig !!

That's you

> next

next


From: Y.Porat on 6 Apr 2010 05:29
On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > As for me
>
> >> > the Doppler effect
> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
> >> > E=hf
> >> > as  the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>
> >> Please explain how.
>
> > -----------------
> > thank you    igor
> > actually  i am surprised that you ask me an  apposite question
> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
> > anyway
> > lets thake it step by step:
>
> > lets take the case in which
> > the observers frame
> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
> > actually it does not matter
> > who is running away from who
> > the only relevant thing is
> > that the distance between  them
> > is becoming bigger with  time
> > (oops  that bloody  time again (:-))
>
> Yes .. you got something right
>
> > --
> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
> > right ??
>
> Yes
>
> > if so
> > the energy of  E=hf becomes smaller
> > rigth??
>
> Yes
>
> > so
> > a question:
> > is it is a contradiction to
> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>
> No .. it is not.
>
> > or do  we have a way to reconcile
> > that apparent contradiction
> > and  HOW  ??
>
> There is no contradiction at all.  Energy is observer dependent, and
> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames.  eg
>
> KE = 1/2 mv^2
---------------------
1/2 mv^2
for poton energy ??
(:-)
----------------
>
> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
> dependent.
>
> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
> conserved.

we are dealing at this stage only about the
observers frame !!!
and it is not conserved accordint to Inertial
so ???

 But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for all
> observers

so ???
whe re is the energy conservation
if not at he observers frame
and that is more than a parrot imbecile !!!

Y.P
------------------------
imnecile crook ????

>
> > that  is   the first step
>
> And already your ignorance of physics is letting you down.  You really
> should LEARN some physics first before having the audacity to attempt to
> 'innovate'.

From: Inertial on 6 Apr 2010 05:39

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4f56e53-c389-4624-832a-b76285a703ac(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > As for me
>>
>> >> > the Doppler effect
>> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
>> >> > E=hf
>> >> > as the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>>
>> >> Please explain how.
>>
>> > -----------------
>> > thank you igor
>> > actually i am surprised that you ask me an apposite question
>> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
>> > anyway
>> > lets thake it step by step:
>>
>> > lets take the case in which
>> > the observers frame
>> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
>> > actually it does not matter
>> > who is running away from who
>> > the only relevant thing is
>> > that the distance between them
>> > is becoming bigger with time
>> > (oops that bloody time again (:-))
>>
>> Yes .. you got something right
>>
>> > --
>> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
>> > right ??
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> > if so
>> > the energy of E=hf becomes smaller
>> > rigth??
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> > so
>> > a question:
>> > is it is a contradiction to
>> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>>
>> No .. it is not.
>>
>> > or do we have a way to reconcile
>> > that apparent contradiction
>> > and HOW ??
>>
>> There is no contradiction at all. Energy is observer dependent, and
>> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames. eg
>>
>> KE = 1/2 mv^2
> ---------------------
> 1/2 mv^2
> for poton energy ??

I never said it was for photon energy.

I gave an example of how energy, in general, is frame dependent. That one
observer measures a different energy to another (due to doppler shift) is
not a contradiction of conservation laws.

> (:-)
> ----------------
>>
>> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
>> dependent.
>>
>> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
>> conserved.
>
> we are dealing at this stage only about the
> observers frame !!!

If you are talking about a difference in energy due to Doppler shift, you
must be considering two different observers and frames.

> and it is not conserved accordint to Inertial
> so ???

Liar. According to YOU it is apparently not conserved. That is wrong. It
IS conserved. That is what *I* told *you*.

>> But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for all
>> observers
>
> so ???
> whe re is the energy conservation
> if not at he observers frame

It is .. that's what I said. In any given observer's frame, energy is
conserved. Doppler shift doesn't change that. The energy is E = hf for
every observer. The E and f can be different for different observers. How
does that in any way imply a contradiction to the conservation of energy?

> and that is more than a parrot imbecile !!!

Eh?

>
> Y.P
> ------------------------
> imnecile crook ????

That's you


From: Y.Porat on 6 Apr 2010 08:53
On Apr 6, 11:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e4f56e53-c389-4624-832a-b76285a703ac(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 3:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a51b27bd-95aa-44f1-ad94-fcbd30c3f5bb(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 5, 8:07 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 5, 3:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > As for me
>
> >> >> > the Doppler effect
> >> >> > is an immediate disprove of the
> >> >> > E=hf
> >> >> > as  the definition is a single smallest photon energy !!
>
> >> >> Please explain how.
>
> >> > -----------------
> >> > thank you    igor
> >> > actually  i am surprised that you ask me an  apposite question
> >> > instead of aprioty attack me (:-)
> >> > anyway
> >> > lets thake it step by step:
>
> >> > lets take the case in which
> >> > the observers frame
> >> > is 'running away' from the orriginal frame that created the phootn:
> >> > actually it does not matter
> >> > who is running away from who
> >> > the only relevant thing is
> >> > that the distance between  them
> >> > is becoming bigger with  time
> >> > (oops  that bloody  time again (:-))
>
> >> Yes .. you got something right
>
> >> > --
> >> > so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller
> >> > right ??
>
> >> Yes
>
> >> > if so
> >> > the energy of  E=hf becomes smaller
> >> > rigth??
>
> >> Yes
>
> >> > so
> >> > a question:
> >> > is it is a contradiction to
> >> > the law of *conservation of energy*
>
> >> No .. it is not.
>
> >> > or do  we have a way to reconcile
> >> > that apparent contradiction
> >> > and  HOW  ??
>
> >> There is no contradiction at all.  Energy is observer dependent, and
> >> conservation is only per-frame, not between frames.  eg
>
> >> KE = 1/2 mv^2
> > ---------------------
> > 1/2 mv^2
> > for poton energy ??
>
> I never said it was for photon energy.
>
> I gave an example of how energy, in general, is frame dependent.  That one
> observer measures a different energy to another (due to doppler shift) is
> not a contradiction of conservation laws.
>
> > (:-)
> > ----------------
>
> >> The value of velocity is observer dependent and so the energy is observer
> >> dependent.
>
> >> For every inertial observer, the energy they measure in their frame is
> >> conserved.
>
> > we   are dealing at this stage only about the
> > observers frame !!!
>
> If you are talking about a difference in energy due to Doppler shift, you
> must be considering two different observers and frames.
>
> > and it is not conserved accordint to Inertial
> > so ???
>
> Liar.  According to YOU it is apparently not conserved.  That is wrong.  It
> IS conserved.  That is what *I* told *you*.
>
> >>  But that does not mean that the same energy is measured for all
> >> observers
>
> > so ???
> > whe re is the energy conservation
> > if not at he observers frame
>
> It is .. that's what I said.  In any given observer's frame, energy is
> conserved.  Doppler shift doesn't change that.  The energy is E = hf for
> every observer.  The E and f can be different for different observers.  How
> does that in any way imply a contradiction to the conservation of energy?
>
> > and that is more than a parrot imbecile !!!
>
> Eh?
>
>
>
> > Y.P
> > ------------------------
> > imnecile crook ????
>
> That's you

-----------------
(:-)
but the imbecile crook Josef Goebbels
still didnt see
my op post !!! (:-)

i would like some human being of this ng
to try and
explain it to that sub humen creature!

no discussions with Josef Goebbels &Co.

so next !

Y.P
From: BURT on 9 Apr 2010 21:45


Set H bar to one because Planck's constant is too small to give light
enough energy.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Stephen Hawking and Two Physical Times
Next: Aether is a physical substance