What makes a formula - to be relativistic??
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Lab experiment done to figure out how quickly molecular hydrogenformed after Big Bang
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.99: P(A-->B) + P(B-->A) = 1 + P(A<-->B) and P(A-->B) - P(B-->A) = P(B) - P(A) in LISP-like Notation
From: Robert Higgins on 5 Jul 2010 20:55 On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 5:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2:12 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > lets take the photon Momentum P > > > > > it is > > > > > hf/c > > > > > But now you've contradicted your claims that photon energy is NOT hf .. > > > > little l pigshit!! Josef Goebbels > > > show me were i said that phootn energy is not > > > hf !! > > > Here, liar: > > > "Here is my better definition about the range > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > > found (in > > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > E single photon = hf n > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 " > > > from March 4. > >---------------------------- > > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > > MR Higgins DOCTOR Higgins, if you please... > i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid better than YOU do. > (and you better do !!! > because i am doing History Well, it sure isn't physics. > and it is betetr toremember waht i say > while i am sure about what i say No matter if it makes any sense at all. > (while i am noty sure i say > 'i am not sure !) > waht yopu quoted above is really another > hiatoric insight of mime > THAT ONE DAY YOU WILLBE ABLE TOSREAL FROMME I can't even guess what you're on about here. > AND RELATE IT TO YOUSELF OR TOYOUR > FRIENDS (:-) > > yousee the problem Mr Higins > the problem is that you ar eless intelligent than > waht i assumed about you!! 'Tis always disappointing to disappoint a disappointment like yourself. > indeed isaid that photonenergy is > > hf times n > THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS > ABOUT IT !! I understood it perfectly; the only problem it is ludicrously incorrect. > > that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT > IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! Yes, that is equal to ONE for 1 photon, TWO for two photons, und so weiter. (Oops, sorry, et cetera.) > and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine > jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there > and re read it God no - it was excruciating torture the first time. > > FROM START TO END !! Nein! No! > INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT > WITH THE LED TORCH > AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! My vote for the most ridiculous suggested experiment in the history of creation. > to prove that > hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL > SINGLE PHOTON !! Right - it is the MAGNITUDE of the photon ENERGY. > THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED > DURING ONE SECOND > BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME Is that like "Miller Time"? Or "Michelob Lite, for the Winners" Even still: "Schaefer is the one beer to have/ When you're having more than one." > if i remember corect withmyold memory > the figure for Planck time is > 5.38 exp -24 > (yet i have a feeling that i dont remember it right > and i am too lazy to check it now (:-)! ELECTRONIC transitions occur during time spans of about 10E-15 second. > 2 > i proved in that series of threads that > the Doppler effect > *is another prove* that the hf is not the definition of the > real single photon Another "Epic Fail" on your part. > > and i am not going to show it now again Danke! > it is all documented > so > to sum it up now You'll add? > more clearly > hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single photon Right, but what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is ENGAGED? What about a photon that "loves" you so much, that she doesn't want to spoil your friendship with a messy sexual relationship? > i showed that it is a definition of photon energy > BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON I think you can find the answer on "LIttle People, Big World." > now > piggy > if you have some plans to steal somemtning from me > BETTT ER STEAL IT EIGHT!! (:-) > > ie exactly and fully as i presented it > because otherwise > you are going to make a fool of yourself > eveb as a thief ... > > because even to be a thief one must have some minimal > intelligence !! (and exact memory ?? (:-) > thanks for remembering > ]and studying my innovations > it shows that deep in your hearth > you at least suspect that i am right (:-) Oh, Porat, you've got a million of 'em. > > keep well (and dont wish me dead > (as inertial -artful Whoever do by their stupidity) > > because i have some other" rabbits in my hat' > that you wil be able to steal from me one day (:-) > Y.P > -----------------
From: Y.Porat on 6 Jul 2010 00:31 On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 3:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:12 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > lets take the photon Momentum P > > > > > > it is > > > > > > hf/c > > > > > > But now you've contradicted your claims that photon energy is NOT hf .. > > > > > little l pigshit!! Josef Goebbels > > > > show me were i said that phootn energy is not > > > > hf !! > > > > Here, liar: > > > > "Here is my better definition about the range > > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > > > found (in > > > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > > E single photon = hf n > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 " > > > > from March 4. > > >---------------------------- > > > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > > > MR Higgins > > DOCTOR Higgins, if you please... > > > i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid > > better than YOU do. > > > (and you better do !!! > > because i am doing History > > Well, it sure isn't physics. > > > and it is betetr toremember waht i say > > while i am sure about what i say > > No matter if it makes any sense at all. > > > (while i am noty sure i say > > 'i am not sure !) > > waht yopu quoted above is really another > > hiatoric insight of mime > > THAT ONE DAY YOU WILLBE ABLE TOSREAL FROMME > > I can't even guess what you're on about here. > > > AND RELATE IT TO YOUSELF OR TOYOUR > > FRIENDS (:-) > > > yousee the problem Mr Higins > > the problem is that you ar eless intelligent than > > waht i assumed about you!! > > 'Tis always disappointing to disappoint a disappointment like > yourself. > > > indeed isaid that photonenergy is > > > hf times n > > THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS > > ABOUT IT !! > > I understood it perfectly; the only problem it is ludicrously > incorrect. > > > > > that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT > > IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! > > Yes, that is equal to ONE for 1 photon, TWO for two photons, und so > weiter. (Oops, sorry, et cetera.) > > > and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine > > jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there > > and re read it > > God no - it was excruciating torture the first time. > > > > > FROM START TO END !! > > Nein! No! > > > INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT > > WITH THE LED TORCH > > AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! > > My vote for the most ridiculous suggested experiment in the history of > creation. > > > to prove that > > hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL > > SINGLE PHOTON !! > > Right - it is the MAGNITUDE of the photon ENERGY. > > > THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED > > DURING ONE SECOND > > BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME > > Is that like "Miller Time"? > Or "Michelob Lite, for the Winners" > Even still: "Schaefer is the one beer to have/ When you're having more > than one." > > > if i remember corect withmyold memory > > the figure for Planck time is > > 5.38 exp -24 > > (yet i have a feeling that i dont remember it right > > and i am too lazy to check it now (:-)! > > ELECTRONIC transitions occur during time spans of about 10E-15 second. > > > 2 > > i proved in that series of threads that > > the Doppler effect > > *is another prove* that the hf is not the definition of the > > real single photon > > Another "Epic Fail" on your part. > > > > > and i am not going to show it now again > > Danke! > > > it is all documented > > so > > to sum it up now > > You'll add? > > > more clearly > > hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single photon > > Right, but what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is ENGAGED? What > about a photon that "loves" you so much, that she doesn't want to > spoil your friendship with a messy sexual relationship? > > > i showed that it is a definition of photon energy > > BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON > > I think you can find the answer on "LIttle People, Big World." > > > > > now > > piggy > > if you have some plans to steal somemtning from me > > BETTT ER STEAL IT EIGHT!! (:-) > > > ie exactly and fully as i presented it > > because otherwise > > you are going to make a fool of yourself > > eveb as a thief ... > > > because even to be a thief one must have some minimal > > intelligence !! (and exact memory ?? (:-) > > thanks for remembering > > ]and studying my innovations > > it shows that deep in your hearth > > you at least suspect that i am right (:-) > > Oh, Porat, you've got a million of 'em. > > > > > keep well (and dont wish me dead > > (as inertial -artful Whoever do by their stupidity) > > > because i have some other" rabbits in my hat' > > that you wil be able to steal from me one day (:-) > > Y.P > > ----------------- BTW 'Dr' Higgins you said Danke.... it means that you are not a native born American so why do you call yourself Higgins?? how long are you in the US ??...........!! about my above physics arguments i have a strange feeling (:-) that if you really undertood it you cant say much against it (provided you really understood it) un less you know you play a dishonest dirty game !! anyway it is well recorded and impossible to steal it (:-)....... BYE Y.P ----------------- Y.P ----------------
From: artful on 6 Jul 2010 00:49 On Jul 6, 2:31 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 5:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:12 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > lets take the photon Momentum P > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > hf/c > > > > > > > But now you've contradicted your claims that photon energy is NOT hf .. > > > > > > little l pigshit!! Josef Goebbels > > > > > show me were i said that phootn energy is not > > > > > hf !! > > > > > Here, liar: > > > > > "Here is my better definition about the range > > > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > > > > found (in > > > > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > > > E single photon = hf n > > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 " > > > > > from March 4. > > > >---------------------------- > > > > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > > > > MR Higgins > > > DOCTOR Higgins, if you please... > > > > i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid > > > better than YOU do. > > > > (and you better do !!! > > > because i am doing History > > > Well, it sure isn't physics. > > > > and it is betetr toremember waht i say > > > while i am sure about what i say > > > No matter if it makes any sense at all. > > > > (while i am noty sure i say > > > 'i am not sure !) > > > waht yopu quoted above is really another > > > hiatoric insight of mime > > > THAT ONE DAY YOU WILLBE ABLE TOSREAL FROMME > > > I can't even guess what you're on about here. > > > > AND RELATE IT TO YOUSELF OR TOYOUR > > > FRIENDS (:-) > > > > yousee the problem Mr Higins > > > the problem is that you ar eless intelligent than > > > waht i assumed about you!! > > > 'Tis always disappointing to disappoint a disappointment like > > yourself. > > > > indeed isaid that photonenergy is > > > > hf times n > > > THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS > > > ABOUT IT !! > > > I understood it perfectly; the only problem it is ludicrously > > incorrect. > > > > that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT > > > IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! > > > Yes, that is equal to ONE for 1 photon, TWO for two photons, und so > > weiter. (Oops, sorry, et cetera.) > > > > and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine > > > jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there > > > and re read it > > > God no - it was excruciating torture the first time. > > > > FROM START TO END !! > > > Nein! No! > > > > INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT > > > WITH THE LED TORCH > > > AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! > > > My vote for the most ridiculous suggested experiment in the history of > > creation. > > > > to prove that > > > hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL > > > SINGLE PHOTON !! > > > Right - it is the MAGNITUDE of the photon ENERGY. > > > > THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED > > > DURING ONE SECOND > > > BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME > > > Is that like "Miller Time"? > > Or "Michelob Lite, for the Winners" > > Even still: "Schaefer is the one beer to have/ When you're having more > > than one." > > > > if i remember corect withmyold memory > > > the figure for Planck time is > > > 5.38 exp -24 > > > (yet i have a feeling that i dont remember it right > > > and i am too lazy to check it now (:-)! > > > ELECTRONIC transitions occur during time spans of about 10E-15 second. > > > > 2 > > > i proved in that series of threads that > > > the Doppler effect > > > *is another prove* that the hf is not the definition of the > > > real single photon > > > Another "Epic Fail" on your part. > > > > and i am not going to show it now again > > > Danke! > > > > it is all documented > > > so > > > to sum it up now > > > You'll add? > > > > more clearly > > > hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single photon > > > Right, but what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is ENGAGED? What > > about a photon that "loves" you so much, that she doesn't want to > > spoil your friendship with a messy sexual relationship? > > > > i showed that it is a definition of photon energy > > > BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON > > > I think you can find the answer on "LIttle People, Big World." > > > > now > > > piggy > > > if you have some plans to steal somemtning from me > > > BETTT ER STEAL IT EIGHT!! (:-) > > > > ie exactly and fully as i presented it > > > because otherwise > > > you are going to make a fool of yourself > > > eveb as a thief ... > > > > because even to be a thief one must have some minimal > > > intelligence !! (and exact memory ?? (:-) > > > thanks for remembering > > > ]and studying my innovations > > > it shows that deep in your hearth > > > you at least suspect that i am right (:-) > > > Oh, Porat, you've got a million of 'em. > > > > keep well (and dont wish me dead > > > (as inertial -artful Whoever do by their stupidity) > > > > because i have some other" rabbits in my hat' > > > that you wil be able to steal from me one day (:-) > > > Y.P > > > ----------------- > > BTW > 'Dr' Higgins > you said > Danke.... > it means that you are not a native born American Nyet .. it doesn't mean that at all .. just means he knows some german. Mon Dieu! > so why do you call yourself Higgins?? Probably because its his name .. not that it matters anyway. > how long are you in the US ??...........!! Why would that be ANY of your business? > about my above physics arguments You didn't make any > i have a strange feeling (:-) that if you really undertood it > you cant say much against it > (provided you really understood it) We do understand it .. its nonsense. So that proves your feeling wrong. > un less you know you play a dishonest dirty game !! The only one lying and cheating here is you. > anyway it is well recorded and impossible > to steal it (:-)....... No-one WANTS to steal your nonsense .. because it is NONSENSE. You are paranoid and delusional, as well as a proven liar and cheat. Get psychiatric help .. your mind is diseased.
From: Y.Porat on 6 Jul 2010 03:50 On Jul 6, 6:49 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2:31 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:12 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > lets take the photon Momentum P > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > hf/c > > > > > > > > But now you've contradicted your claims that photon energy is NOT hf .. > > > > > > > little l pigshit!! Josef Goebbels > > > > > > show me were i said that phootn energy is not > > > > > > hf !! > > > > > > Here, liar: > > > > > > "Here is my better definition about the range > > > > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > > > > > found (in > > > > > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > > > > E single photon = hf n > > > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 " > > > > > > from March 4. > > > > >---------------------------- > > > > > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > > > > > MR Higgins > > > > DOCTOR Higgins, if you please... > > > > > i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid > > > > better than YOU do. > > > > > (and you better do !!! > > > > because i am doing History > > > > Well, it sure isn't physics. > > > > > and it is betetr toremember waht i say > > > > while i am sure about what i say > > > > No matter if it makes any sense at all. > > > > > (while i am noty sure i say > > > > 'i am not sure !) > > > > waht yopu quoted above is really another > > > > hiatoric insight of mime > > > > THAT ONE DAY YOU WILLBE ABLE TOSREAL FROMME > > > > I can't even guess what you're on about here. > > > > > AND RELATE IT TO YOUSELF OR TOYOUR > > > > FRIENDS (:-) > > > > > yousee the problem Mr Higins > > > > the problem is that you ar eless intelligent than > > > > waht i assumed about you!! > > > > 'Tis always disappointing to disappoint a disappointment like > > > yourself. > > > > > indeed isaid that photonenergy is > > > > > hf times n > > > > THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS > > > > ABOUT IT !! > > > > I understood it perfectly; the only problem it is ludicrously > > > incorrect. > > > > > that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT > > > > IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! > > > > Yes, that is equal to ONE for 1 photon, TWO for two photons, und so > > > weiter. (Oops, sorry, et cetera.) > > > > > and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine > > > > jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there > > > > and re read it > > > > God no - it was excruciating torture the first time. > > > > > FROM START TO END !! > > > > Nein! No! > > > > > INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT > > > > WITH THE LED TORCH > > > > AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! > > > > My vote for the most ridiculous suggested experiment in the history of > > > creation. > > > > > to prove that > > > > hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL > > > > SINGLE PHOTON !! > > > > Right - it is the MAGNITUDE of the photon ENERGY. > > > > > THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED > > > > DURING ONE SECOND > > > > BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME > > > > Is that like "Miller Time"? > > > Or "Michelob Lite, for the Winners" > > > Even still: "Schaefer is the one beer to have/ When you're having more > > > than one." > > > > > if i remember corect withmyold memory > > > > the figure for Planck time is > > > > 5.38 exp -24 > > > > (yet i have a feeling that i dont remember it right > > > > and i am too lazy to check it now (:-)! > > > > ELECTRONIC transitions occur during time spans of about 10E-15 second.. > > > > > 2 > > > > i proved in that series of threads that > > > > the Doppler effect > > > > *is another prove* that the hf is not the definition of the > > > > real single photon > > > > Another "Epic Fail" on your part. > > > > > and i am not going to show it now again > > > > Danke! > > > > > it is all documented > > > > so > > > > to sum it up now > > > > You'll add? > > > > > more clearly > > > > hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single photon > > > > Right, but what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is ENGAGED? What > > > about a photon that "loves" you so much, that she doesn't want to > > > spoil your friendship with a messy sexual relationship? > > > > > i showed that it is a definition of photon energy > > > > BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON > > > > I think you can find the answer on "LIttle People, Big World." > > > > > now > > > > piggy > > > > if you have some plans to steal somemtning from me > > > > BETTT ER STEAL IT EIGHT!! (:-) > > > > > ie exactly and fully as i presented it > > > > because otherwise > > > > you are going to make a fool of yourself > > > > eveb as a thief ... > > > > > because even to be a thief one must have some minimal > > > > intelligence !! (and exact memory ?? (:-) > > > > thanks for remembering > > > > ]and studying my innovations > > > > it shows that deep in your hearth > > > > you at least suspect that i am right (:-) > > > > Oh, Porat, you've got a million of 'em. > > > > > keep well (and dont wish me dead > > > > (as inertial -artful Whoever do by their stupidity) > > > > > because i have some other" rabbits in my hat' > > > > that you wil be able to steal from me one day (:-) > > > > Y.P > > > > ----------------- > > > BTW > > 'Dr' Higgins > > you said > > Danke.... > > it means that you are not a native born American > > Nyet .. it doesn't mean that at all .. just means he knows some > german. Mon Dieu! > > > so why do you call yourself Higgins?? > > Probably because its his name .. not that it matters anyway. > > > how long are you in the US ??...........!! > > Why would that be ANY of your business? > > > about my above physics arguments > > You didn't make any > > > i have a strange feeling (:-) that if you really undertood it > > you cant say much against it > > (provided you really understood it) > > We do understand it .. its nonsense. So that proves your feeling > wrong. > > > un less you know you play a dishonest dirty game !! > > The only one lying and cheating here is you. > > > anyway it is well recorded and impossible > > to steal it (:-)....... > > No-one WANTS to steal your nonsense .. because it is NONSENSE. You > are paranoid and delusional, as well as a proven liar and cheat. Get > psychiatric help .. your mind is diseased. -------------- (:-)who do you boher day and night to talk to a diseased person Hey little psycho crook ? !! i have now about 2000 readers that are interested to see what that diseased person have to say Hey ***anonymous psycho**gangster **parasite** - with at least 3 fake names !! do you think that you can cheat the whole world forever ??.! why dont you show them readers --- ---**YOUR** INNOVATIONS IN PHYSICS??.. may be even just a tiny little example ?? how about that ??? (:-) Y.P ------------ next -------------------
From: whoever on 6 Jul 2010 06:42
"Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1e0573b9-83e6-45d2-82a7-f32c31490616(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Jul 6, 6:49 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2:31 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:12 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > lets take the photon Momentum P > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > hf/c > > > > > > > > But now you've contradicted your claims that photon energy is > > > > > > > NOT hf .. > > > > > > > little l pigshit!! Josef Goebbels > > > > > > show me were i said that phootn energy is not > > > > > > hf !! > > > > > > Here, liar: > > > > > > "Here is my better definition about the range > > > > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > > > > > found (in > > > > > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > > > > E single photon = hf n > > > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 " > > > > > > from March 4. > > > > >---------------------------- > > > > > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > > > > > MR Higgins > > > > DOCTOR Higgins, if you please... > > > > > i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid > > > > better than YOU do. > > > > > (and you better do !!! > > > > because i am doing History > > > > Well, it sure isn't physics. > > > > > and it is betetr toremember waht i say > > > > while i am sure about what i say > > > > No matter if it makes any sense at all. > > > > > (while i am noty sure i say > > > > 'i am not sure !) > > > > waht yopu quoted above is really another > > > > hiatoric insight of mime > > > > THAT ONE DAY YOU WILLBE ABLE TOSREAL FROMME > > > > I can't even guess what you're on about here. > > > > > AND RELATE IT TO YOUSELF OR TOYOUR > > > > FRIENDS (:-) > > > > > yousee the problem Mr Higins > > > > the problem is that you ar eless intelligent than > > > > waht i assumed about you!! > > > > 'Tis always disappointing to disappoint a disappointment like > > > yourself. > > > > > indeed isaid that photonenergy is > > > > > hf times n > > > > THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS > > > > ABOUT IT !! > > > > I understood it perfectly; the only problem it is ludicrously > > > incorrect. > > > > > that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT > > > > IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! > > > > Yes, that is equal to ONE for 1 photon, TWO for two photons, und so > > > weiter. (Oops, sorry, et cetera.) > > > > > and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine > > > > jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there > > > > and re read it > > > > God no - it was excruciating torture the first time. > > > > > FROM START TO END !! > > > > Nein! No! > > > > > INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT > > > > WITH THE LED TORCH > > > > AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! > > > > My vote for the most ridiculous suggested experiment in the history of > > > creation. > > > > > to prove that > > > > hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL > > > > SINGLE PHOTON !! > > > > Right - it is the MAGNITUDE of the photon ENERGY. > > > > > THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED > > > > DURING ONE SECOND > > > > BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME > > > > Is that like "Miller Time"? > > > Or "Michelob Lite, for the Winners" > > > Even still: "Schaefer is the one beer to have/ When you're having more > > > than one." > > > > > if i remember corect withmyold memory > > > > the figure for Planck time is > > > > 5.38 exp -24 > > > > (yet i have a feeling that i dont remember it right > > > > and i am too lazy to check it now (:-)! > > > > ELECTRONIC transitions occur during time spans of about 10E-15 second. > > > > > 2 > > > > i proved in that series of threads that > > > > the Doppler effect > > > > *is another prove* that the hf is not the definition of the > > > > real single photon > > > > Another "Epic Fail" on your part. > > > > > and i am not going to show it now again > > > > Danke! > > > > > it is all documented > > > > so > > > > to sum it up now > > > > You'll add? > > > > > more clearly > > > > hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single > > > > photon > > > > Right, but what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is ENGAGED? What > > > about a photon that "loves" you so much, that she doesn't want to > > > spoil your friendship with a messy sexual relationship? > > > > > i showed that it is a definition of photon energy > > > > BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON > > > > I think you can find the answer on "LIttle People, Big World." > > > > > now > > > > piggy > > > > if you have some plans to steal somemtning from me > > > > BETTT ER STEAL IT EIGHT!! (:-) > > > > > ie exactly and fully as i presented it > > > > because otherwise > > > > you are going to make a fool of yourself > > > > eveb as a thief ... > > > > > because even to be a thief one must have some minimal > > > > intelligence !! (and exact memory ?? (:-) > > > > thanks for remembering > > > > ]and studying my innovations > > > > it shows that deep in your hearth > > > > you at least suspect that i am right (:-) > > > > Oh, Porat, you've got a million of 'em. > > > > > keep well (and dont wish me dead > > > > (as inertial -artful Whoever do by their stupidity) > > > > > because i have some other" rabbits in my hat' > > > > that you wil be able to steal from me one day (:-) > > > > Y.P > > > > ----------------- > > > BTW > > 'Dr' Higgins > > you said > > Danke.... > > it means that you are not a native born American > > Nyet .. it doesn't mean that at all .. just means he knows some > german. Mon Dieu! > > > so why do you call yourself Higgins?? > > Probably because its his name .. not that it matters anyway. > > > how long are you in the US ??...........!! > > Why would that be ANY of your business? > > > about my above physics arguments > > You didn't make any > > > i have a strange feeling (:-) that if you really undertood it > > you cant say much against it > > (provided you really understood it) > > We do understand it .. its nonsense. So that proves your feeling > wrong. > > > un less you know you play a dishonest dirty game !! > > The only one lying and cheating here is you. > > > anyway it is well recorded and impossible > > to steal it (:-)....... > > No-one WANTS to steal your nonsense .. because it is NONSENSE. You > are paranoid and delusional, as well as a proven liar and cheat. Get > psychiatric help .. your mind is diseased. -------------- > (:-)who do you boher day and night to talk to a diseased person No bother at all > Hey little psycho crook ? !! That's you .. you've proved your paranoid and delusional, and proved you lie and cheat. > i have now about 2000 readers Bahah .. 2000 people laughing at you > that are interested to see what that diseased person have to say Not really .. no. I only post replies to you to expose your lies and deception. I am an honest person. I know that makes me your enemy. But I also know that you'll be dead and gone and forgotten very soon. >Hey >***anonymous psycho**gangster >**parasite** - with at least 3 fake names !! > >do you think that you can cheat >the whole world forever ??.! I'm not doing cheating anyone, nor am I trying to. I am honest. YOU certainly are trying to cheat .. that's obvious from your posts. You can't do it forever because you are old and senile .. only a matter of time (the sooner the better) before you can no longer post and then die a sad and lonely old man. >why dont you show them readers --- > ---**YOUR** INNOVATIONS IN PHYSICS??.. > may be even just a tiny little example ?? >how about that ??? (:-) My advance in physics is in countering your backward steps. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |