The Doppler effect and its meaning about photon energy emission !!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Solving a Math Problem.
Next: Negative Energy
From: Y.Porat on 5 Apr 2010 20:50 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 (:-)) -- so in that case f at the observers frame becoms smaller right ?? if so the energy of E=hf becomes smaller rigth?? so a question: is it is a contradiction to the law of *conservation of energy* or do we have a way to reconcile that apparent contradiction and HOW ?? that is the first step TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: Inertial on 5 Apr 2010 21:17 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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'.
From: Y.Porat on 6 Apr 2010 02:18 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 !!! not even a crook just a psychopath imbecile !! lets hear more cleaver knowledgeable people !! next !!! Y.P --------------------
From: Inertial on 6 Apr 2010 05:05 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(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?
From: Y.Porat on 6 Apr 2010 05:08
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 !! next Y.P ------------- |