Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial' ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Defining the "War On Some Drugs"
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 05:49 "Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen(a)nospam.please> wrote in message news:huqc9b$b90$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > Inertial wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:49962b2d-994c-4cd2-98d8-fcdd7ff087cd(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> [...] >> >> I don't need any help. You do, but refuse to learn. That's your problem >> .. but the rest of us have to suffer through your ignorance and >> stupidity. > > We'd suffer less if you'd just give up. Unless you're enjoying > yourself, of course. Why do you keep arguing so fervently, even > though you know you'll never be getting anywhere? Because I like the truth to be out there .. if feel a duty to those who read these threads. And maybe .. just maybe .. he might one day surprise us and start to see where he is going wrong and understand.
From: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 07:55 "Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen(a)nospam.please> wrote in message news:huqjlv$llu$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > Inertial wrote: >> "Jeroen Belleman" <jeroen(a)nospam.please> wrote in message >> news:huqc9b$b90$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>> Inertial wrote: >>>> I don't need any help. You [Y.P.] do, but refuse to learn. That's >>>> your problem .. but the rest of us have to suffer through your >>>> ignorance and stupidity. >>> >>> We'd suffer less if you'd just give up. Unless you're enjoying >>> yourself, of course. Why do you keep arguing so fervently, even >>> though you know you'll never be getting anywhere? >> >> Because I like the truth to be out there .. if feel a duty to those who >> read these threads. And maybe .. just maybe .. he might one day surprise >> us and start to see where he is going wrong and understand. > > You are entitled to your feelings. However, in my honest opinion, I do > not think you are doing sci.physics a service. I do not believe that > you will succeed to convince him. For anyone so inclined, the concepts > discussed are easy enough to come by, but none so blind as those who > will not see. True .. prob shouldn't go to the sci.physics and sci.physics.particle. .. but Porat loves to cross post his hatred. if I take them off my replyies he yells insults and says I'm cheating and depriving his readers and puts the same groups (if not more) back on again.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jun 2010 07:59 On Jun 10, 1:52 pm, Jeroen Belleman <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > "Jeroen Belleman" <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote in message > >news:huqc9b$b90$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> Inertial wrote: > >>> I don't need any help. You [Y.P.] do, but refuse to learn. That's your > >>> problem .. but the rest of us have to suffer through your ignorance > >>> and stupidity. > > >> We'd suffer less if you'd just give up. Unless you're enjoying > >> yourself, of course. Why do you keep arguing so fervently, even > >> though you know you'll never be getting anywhere? > > > Because I like the truth to be out there .. if feel a duty to those who > > read these threads. And maybe .. just maybe .. he might one day > > surprise us and start to see where he is going wrong and understand. > > You are entitled to your feelings. However, in my honest opinion, I do > not think you are doing sci.physics a service. I do not believe that > you will succeed to convince him. For anyone so inclined, the concepts > discussed are easy enough to come by, but none so blind as those who > will not see. > > Jeroen Belleman ------------------------ MR belleman BTW are you a physicist ??) inertial admitted that the dimensions of photon momentum are M L/C soof course just those dinensions cannot describe and define the photon momentum there must be some scalar figures that are attached to it!! now according to you what is that L/C stand for - in that formula (of photon momentum ???) TIA Y.Porat --------------------------
From: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 08:26 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:43464268-0cac-4e45-9f91-0becac7795c5(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 10, 1:52 pm, Jeroen Belleman <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote: >> Inertial wrote: >> > "Jeroen Belleman" <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote in message >> >news:huqc9b$b90$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> >> Inertial wrote: >> >>> I don't need any help. You [Y.P.] do, but refuse to learn. That's >> >>> your >> >>> problem .. but the rest of us have to suffer through your ignorance >> >>> and stupidity. >> >> >> We'd suffer less if you'd just give up. Unless you're enjoying >> >> yourself, of course. Why do you keep arguing so fervently, even >> >> though you know you'll never be getting anywhere? >> >> > Because I like the truth to be out there .. if feel a duty to those who >> > read these threads. And maybe .. just maybe .. he might one day >> > surprise us and start to see where he is going wrong and understand. >> >> You are entitled to your feelings. However, in my honest opinion, I do >> not think you are doing sci.physics a service. I do not believe that >> you will succeed to convince him. For anyone so inclined, the concepts >> discussed are easy enough to come by, but none so blind as those who >> will not see. >> >> Jeroen Belleman > > ------------------------ > MR belleman > BTW are you a physicist ??) > inertial admitted that > the dimensions of photon momentum are > > M L/C No. I did not. I said very clearly they were ML/T. Don't lie about what I say. There was no 'admission' .. ML/T is what the dimensions of any momentum are and always have been. P = h / lamda is perfectly correct as far as dimension go. > soof course just those dinensions > cannot describe and define the > photon momentum P = h / lambda gives you the momentum with the correct dimensions and numerical value > there must be some > scalar figures that are attached to it!! P, h , and lambda are ALL scalars. They each have a numerical value and dimensions. Depending on you units of measure and what EMR you are talking about, you get difference values for photon momentum > now > according to you > what is that L/C stand for - in that formula There is no L/C in the formula. There is h/lambda. And that has units of ML/T. Try to keep up > (of photon momentum ???)
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jun 2010 08:38
On Jun 10, 2:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:43464268-0cac-4e45-9f91-0becac7795c5(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 10, 1:52 pm, Jeroen Belleman <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote: > >> Inertial wrote: > >> > "Jeroen Belleman" <jer...(a)nospam.please> wrote in message > >> >news:huqc9b$b90$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> >> Inertial wrote: > >> >>> I don't need any help. You [Y.P.] do, but refuse to learn. That's > >> >>> your > >> >>> problem .. but the rest of us have to suffer through your ignorance > >> >>> and stupidity. > > >> >> We'd suffer less if you'd just give up. Unless you're enjoying > >> >> yourself, of course. Why do you keep arguing so fervently, even > >> >> though you know you'll never be getting anywhere? > > >> > Because I like the truth to be out there .. if feel a duty to those who > >> > read these threads. And maybe .. just maybe .. he might one day > >> > surprise us and start to see where he is going wrong and understand. > > >> You are entitled to your feelings. However, in my honest opinion, I do > >> not think you are doing sci.physics a service. I do not believe that > >> you will succeed to convince him. For anyone so inclined, the concepts > >> discussed are easy enough to come by, but none so blind as those who > >> will not see. > > >> Jeroen Belleman > > > ------------------------ > > MR belleman > > BTW are you a physicist ??) > > inertial admitted that > > the dimensions of photon momentum are > > > M L/C > > No. I did not. I said very clearly they were ML/T. Don't lie about what I > say. > > There was no 'admission' .. ML/T is what the dimensions of any momentum are > and always have been. P = h / lamda is perfectly correct as far as > dimension go. > > > soof course just those dinensions > > cannot describe and define the > > photon momentum > > P = h / lambda gives you the momentum with the correct dimensions and > numerical value > > > there must be some > > scalar figures that are attached to it!! > > P, h , and lambda are ALL scalars. They each have a numerical value and > dimensions. Depending on you units of measure and what EMR you are talking > about, you get difference values for photon momentum > > > now > > according to you > > what is that L/C stand for - in that formula > > There is no L/C in the formula. There is h/lambda. And that has units of > ML/T. Try to keep up > > > (of photon momentum ???) ------------------- next !! enough is enough with that psychopath pig imbecile donkey now i wait for Human being PHYSICISTS to get in that discussion !! and to make some advance in physics !! TIA Y.Porat ------------------- |