Re: A better new definition for the real *single* photon energy emission plus a simple experiment
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > 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!!
>
> [snip crap]
>
> idiot
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
-----------------
how about some physics arguments
eh ?? old farther ??
next
Y.P
------------------
Y.Porat
> On 3/4/2010 4:38 AM, Inertial wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5ef9ff14-94d3-437b...@y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 4, 10:44 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 4, 9:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> >news:09d15c0e-be38-40a8...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > Oh gawd .. not again
>
> >>> > > 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!!
>
> >>> hf > and
> >>> > tested many many times since
>
> >>> > > E single photon = hf n
>
> >>> > WRONG
>
> >>> > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range
>
> >>> > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000
>
> >>> > WRONG. n = 1 ..because there is only ONE photon in a photon .. not a
> >>> > fraction of a photon.
>
> >>> > > 2
> >>> > > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
>
> >>> > The following is NOT at all an experiment showing the energy of a >
> >>> single
> >>> > photon as E = hfn .. or even the correct equation E = hf, as it
> >>> does > not
> >>> > involve a single detectable photon, or a known number of photons >
> >>> arriving on
> >>> > the cell. So it is POINTLESS.
>
> >>> > > you need for it
>
> >>> > > a
> >>> > > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells
> >>> > > (actually it can be other devices that are activated
> >>> > > by photon electric cells )
>
> >>> > > b
> >>> > > a Led torch
> >>> > > c
> >>> > > the experiment must be in a background light
> >>> > > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!..
> >>> > > iow light wave that is long enough
> >>> > > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit )
>
> >>> > > so
> >>> > > 1
> >>> > > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells
> >>> > > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!!
>
> >>> > > better do it for much less than a second !!
> >>> > > (half or 1/4 second etc )
>
> >>> > > 2
> >>> > > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you > >
> >>> calculator
> >>> > > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then
> >>> > > *disappear*
> >>> > > 3
> >>> > > what do you get there ??
>
> >>> > It is POINTLESS doing the experiment because it says ABSOLUTELY
> >>> NOTHING
> >>> > about your stupid nonsensical formula.
>
> >>> > > some hints:
> >>> > > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the
> >>> > > calculator activation ('life time' )--
>
> >>> > > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION*
> >>> > > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!**
>
> >>> > Of course it is. Though there is some small delay at start and end.
> >>> > But
> >>> > basically the calculator is on as long as the torch is. Which is
> >>> just > what
> >>> > we'd expect seeing the torch is emitting lots and lots of E = hf >
> >>> photons
> >>> > over time.
>
> >>> > It doesn't show anything about there being some arbitrary factor of n
> >>> > invovled.
>
> >>> > > (in our case less than a second
> >>> > > but more then zero time !!!
>
> >>> > Yes .. it all depends how long you turn the light on for.
>
> >>> > > Q E D !!
>
> >>> > There is no QED .. YOU HAVE NOT PROVED ANYTHING !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>> > > historic copyright !
>
> >>> > BAHAHAHA .. just more Porat bullshit and crap
>
> >>> > > Yehiel Porat
> >>> > > Mars 2010
>
> >>> > So you live on Mars ?
>
> >>> ----------------
> >>> here goes the
> >>> **anonymous ** = Inertial = Artful =and what else ?
> >>> and may be Fererbacher
>
> >>> Hey anonymous!!
> >>> this tread is for
> >>> ***INTELLIGENT** **HONEST** PEOPLE !!
> >>> you are neither of it !!
> >>> (:-)
> >>> and we already registered you as an imbecile crook
> >>> not need for further proves for that !!
>
> >>> next
> >>> TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> -----------------------
>
> >> just a hint reminder
> >> for the sane intelligent honest readers
>
> > That's me
>
> >> f of the hf formula
> >> is defined as
>
> >> (scalar) number of wavelengths
> >> per SECOND
>
> > Yeup . .they are the units we use. just like speed is in meters per second.
>
> >> agin per **second*
>
> > You do like repeating yourself repeating yourself
>
> >> not more not less
>
> > So you think that a car can only travel at 1 km/sec if it travels for
> > exactly one second?
>
> > Do you think a sounds wave of 440hz must last for a whole second .. so
> > you cannot have a tone of half a second or two seconds.
>
> > you really are a moron
>
> >> it i snot a dimension it is a scalar !!
>
> > No .. per second is a dimension. Gees
>
> >> therefore
> >> even the psychopath Inertail
> >> agreed that if it is during 2 seconds
> >> ithas to be multiplies by 2
>
> > No .. it doesn.t
>
> > If things are arriving at (say) 100 per second, then over two second
> > their arrival rate is STILL 100 per second. over half a second it is
> > still 100 per second
>
> >> and that is why thaty psychopat
> >> suggested to present the definition of a single phopton that lasts
> >> (:-) tow seconds
>
> > I do no such thing. You are a liar.
>
> >> as
> >> e=n h f
> >> and even demanded a 'cppyright '
> >> for that (:-)
>
> > I copyrighted it before you wrote yours. You are infringing on my
> > copyright. It is, of course, nonsense.
>
> >> it is all recorded in previous threads
>
> > Yes it is
>
> >> the crook artful = Inertial
> >> is counting on that no reader will bother
> >> to read previous thread
>
> > noi .. I'm counting that they will and see what an idiot and liar you are
>
> >> but even what her wrots jsut in this threadis enough more then
> >> enough ...
> >> so he agreed that th en should be added to photons that last more than
> >> a second
>
> > NO I DID NOT AGREE AT ALL.. I have NEVER agreed with that shit you post.
>
> >> he had no choice
> >> experimental facts show thqat emission of phootn energy is
> >> linearly depended on **time duration.*
>
> > NO .IT DOES NOT. Experimental evidence show that photons have energy E =
> > hf. The duration of light make NO DIFFERENCE to the energy
>
> >> but that psychopath ddint notice that we
> >> and another idiot caledProf Higgis
> >> said that his n should be an integer
>
> > Stop your lying.
>
> >> now
> >> th e facts are that photon energy **absorption**
> >> is happening in *shorter time* than just one second !!
>
> > The ONLY ONE .. repeat ONLY ONE .. saying it happens in a second IS YOU
> > !!!!!
>
> > Noone else is saying that AT ALL
>
> > You are a blatant liar as well as an evil senile old fool
>
> >> so waht happens to that
> >> idiotic formula with n as only an integer ??!!
> >> and they counted on that it *seems* that
> >> it is difficult to prove that photon absorption (durationis) is
> >> found abundantly in
> >> much less than one second -- in really
>
> > THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> ------------
> >> therefor i presented that simple experiment tha showes clearly the
>
> > [snip same shit as before that proves NOTHING other than Porat is a
> > senile old fart]
>
> Uh, he's succeeded in pulling you down to his level.
-------------------
who is 'you'
anyway
how about some physics arguments ??
Y.P
-------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
see the ' level' of uncle Al for instance
others are not much better !!
you have a biased double standard of morality
not to mention that you said nothing
about physics arguments
2
did we had in past
some personal clash about science ??(:-) i think we had !! (:-)
the famous gangster said once :
'every thing is **personal** '' (:-) do you agree ?....
Y.P
-------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
anyone that will see Clarck s profile
will see that he is 8 months on the net......
Y.P
--------------------
Y.Porat
ie
exactly as-- Inertial = Artful =Feuerbacher
the Fretz inventor
Mr Inrtial:
is it possible that there will be a photon
with f = one cycle per 100 billion years ??
(:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Y.P
-------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How does a very long wavelength light wave appear in space?
All at once nonlocally or does it grow to full size over time?
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 4, 7:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:hmo23...@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > ----------------
> > it surely *is*
>
> Yeup .. been detected lots of times. Its energy has been found to be
> proportional to the frequency of EMR by the famous formulas E = hf. Note
> that 'f' is not the number of photons-per-second .. it is the frequency of
> the light/EMR
>
> > we are not dealing directly with a specific photon
> > we deal with single photon ENERGY !! ie in Joules !!
>
> As given by E = hf.
>
> > but not yet defined
>
> It is very well defined
>
> > as a specific just one quantity
> > of energy value
> > waht i defined is
> > a scope (limits *)
> > of possible and *not possible* range of values
> > in order to be considered as
> > A SINGLE** **PHOTON ENERGY** !!
>
> Which is already well known and experimentally found. E = hf is the energy
> of a single photon of EMR that has frequency f. Note that 'f' is not the
> number of photons-per-second .. it is the frequency of the light/EMR
--------------------
how is f defined?? (:-)
Btw i like that 'YEP' of yours
it i s full of power sort of those Sherifs
in he wild west of America
an ordianary man say 'yes'
a mighty man like you sais ' YEP'
as a grate personality !!
A GREAT PHYSICIST
A GRAT HUMAN BEING!!
Obama is a little personality compared to you
indeed you IMPRESES anybody ...
i start to ADMIRE you !!
*even jUST by that *YEP * of yourse (:-)**
2
i am impressd WITH that you as well --
DONT LET EXPERIMENTAL DATA -
TO DISTURB YOU !!
3
ANYWAY
just answer
how do you define that f of the E=hf
ie
how do you define FREQUENCY ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
1
what is a very long wavelength for you ??
do you mean that of the red light
or may be that of a radio transition ??
if it is
of the red light - you just see it with your eyes
but it is not a single wave light
it is a huge number of them
PER SECOND !! AGAIN PER SECOND
as defined by the red light DEFINITION
SO IT IS TIME DEPENDENT !!!
by
number of red wave lights per second
the same as you see light
> All at once nonlocally or does it grow to full size over time?
------------------
a single photon is not sort of a ball
that can grow withtime
it i sa huge number of very tiny waves lenghts
that are flowing each other
linearly with elapse of time !!
2
if you like it metaphorically
like bullets of a machine gun
shot by a specific constant rate !!
3
if you donr mind
light has mass !!
though all those 'smarties ' still didnt got it
and that is the reason why they stil do nit understnd
WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON (:-)
had they realzed it
they could understnd better what is
a single photon
the real single photon (defined ny nature )
is certainly not
define by just one second (a second is a humen arbitrary definition
of time
nature didn t here about that second ...)
as i proved in my abouve Op post
incredible simple experiment
3
even my above new definition isnot the ultimate
definition of th real singl ephoton
it i s only defining better than the existing definition
or cureent 'understanding '''
THERE RANGE (of timer) IN WHICH IT MIGHT BE FOUND IN FUTURE
(that is indeed mighty small !!
yet not insnantaneously'
nothing in our universe is done literally instantaneously
to *do* and' 'instantaneously' -
do not go hand in hand !!
(beside the farthing of some 'Smarties here )
ie the *range* of time is :
bigger than zero
but less than a second !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
-------------
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
<superkae...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:4b8f5b13$0$27813$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:09d15c0e-be38-40a8...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Oh gawd .. not again
>
> >> Here is my better definition about the range
> >> in which the real single photon energy emission should be found
>
> > It already has
>
> >> (in
> >> future !!! it was not yet been found!!
>
> > WRONG .. Of course it has .. it was found LONG ago by Planck .. E = hf and
> > tested many many times since
>
> >> E single photon = hf n
>
> > WRONG
>
> >> while n can be *only* in the flowing range
>
> >> 0 > n <<<< 1.0000
>
> negative. It does not matter if you weite 0 > n or n < 0. in both cases it
> means that n is negative.
-------------------
sorry is that what i wrote ??
it should be
0 > n <<<< 1.000
thanks
anyway
if you flllowed my explaantions and experiment
you sholf understand that it is
between zero and 1.00
i even said ir by words !!
2
please note that i asked Inertial
what is hid defintion of FREQUENCY??
AND HE DISAPPEARED !!(can you guess why )
(:-)
3
ddi you do my simple experiment??
had you done it
you would understand nicely what i am talking about!!
anyway John thank you for your correction
and interest in my finding
it is revolutionary !!!
i hope you understand its outcomes
for instance among ghe others
refuting the paradigm that *a single photon can interfere with itself
*!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.y.Porat
> On Mar 4, 2:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found
>
> > It already has
>
> > > (in
> > > future !!! it was not yet been found!!
>
> > WRONG .. Of course it has .. it was found LONG ago by Planck .. E = hf and
> > tested many many times since
>
> > > E single photon = hf n
>
> > WRONG
>
> > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range
>
> > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000
>
> > fraction of a photon.
>
> > > 2
> > > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
>
> > The following is NOT at all an experiment showing the energy of a single
> > photon as E = hfn .. or even the correct equation E = hf, as it does not
> > involve a single detectable photon, or a known number of photons arriving on
> > the cell. So it is POINTLESS.
>
> Therefore you were right in saying that his argument is pointless.
> So why do you go on and on and on discussing it on these newsgroups?
-----e--------------
1
btw
just to say
you are wrong
yoju are wrong
is not bringing arguments
it i s called hand savings
in our case hand wavings of an
imbecile shameless crock
not to mention that my above experiment shows it clearly !!
better ask Inertial and yourself
WHAT IS TH DEFINITION OF
FREQUENCY !!!....
it is not accidental that he ran away
while i asked him that....
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
-
Inertial
news:5223ec2f-9665-429f...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
You still got it wrong !!! BAHAHAHA
> thanks
> anyway
> if you flllowed my explaantions and experiment
> you sholf understand that it is
> between zero and 1.00
> i even said ir by words !!
Your experiment has nothing at all to do with the nonsense formula.
>
> 2
> please note that i asked Inertial
> what is hid defintion of FREQUENCY??
> AND HE DISAPPEARED !!(can you guess why )
I did not .. you added more newsgroups to your spam and my replies don't go
thru.
> (:-)
> 3
> ddi you do my simple experiment??
Who cares
> had you done it
> you would understand nicely what i am talking about!!
Nope .. it has NOTHING TO DO with what you're talking about
> anyway John thank you for your correction
> and interest in my finding
> it is revolutionary !!!
Its bullshit
> i hope you understand its outcomes
It has none, other than showing you are a moron
> for instance among ghe others
> refuting the paradigm that *a single photon can interfere with itself
> *!!
It has NOTHING to do with that EITHER !!
Gees. You just have no idea at all, you old fool
Inertial
news:b8d94abb-84f1-4672...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I already have .. you keep lying about them
> it i s called hand savings
Yes .. it saves my hand from typing the same arguments again and againg
> in our case hand wavings of an
> imbecile shameless crock
That would be you
> not to mention that my above experiment shows it clearly !!
It does not show anything related to what you say
> better ask Inertial and yourself
>
> WHAT IS TH DEFINITION OF
> FREQUENCY !!!....
Look up a physics text
> it is not accidental that he ran away
I didn't
> while i asked him that....
I didn't
Y.Porat
March
i am not a native English speaker
> > -------------------
> > sorry is that what i wrote ??
> > it should be
>
> > 0 > n <<<< 1.000
ok is should be
0 < n >>>> 1.0000
i said it even in words
and anyone could understand me :
bigger than zero
but smaller than 1.000
th e only thing you can do is to try and obfuscate ***the real main
thing*
and hang your neck on some tiny spelling or typing mistakes
as a fucken little Josef Goebbels !!
----------
and you remain with your retarded
n as an integer
go take you reward for that (:-)
2
where did you run to while i asked you
what is your definition of
Frequency?? !!!!
LETS HERE IT AGAIN FROM YOUR MOUTH
(:-)
sure you refuse to say it
because it will discover you as an imbecile !!
anyway
lets see if you will say it
loud and clear !!
Y.P
------------------------
Inertial
Probably because you live on Mars.
>> > -------------------
>> > sorry is that what i wrote ??
>> > it should be
>>
>> > 0 > n <<<< 1.000
>
> ok is should be
>
> 0 < n >>>> 1.0000
Just funny that you had the mistake pointed out then wrote the correction
the same as the mistake. I'm easily amused.
> i said it even in words
> and anyone could understand me :
>
> bigger than zero
> but smaller than 1.000
Its still utter nonsense, of course, regardless of what n is .. except for n
= 1, which is the correct value found by experiment
> th e only thing you can do is to try and obfuscate ***the real main
> thing*
Nope .. I never do. The real main thing is that you equation is nonsense,
as shown by experiment, which gives E = hf for the energy of a single
photon.
> and hang your neck on some tiny spelling or typing mistakes
> as a fucken little Josef Goebbels !!
No .. that's you. You're clearly a nazi
> ----------
> and you remain with your retarded
> n as an integer
n = 1
> go take you reward for that (:-)
No need .. Planck already got it.
> 2
> where did you run to while i asked you
> what is your definition of
> Frequency?? !!!!
Nowhere .. I answered it
> LETS HERE IT AGAIN FROM YOUR MOUTH
> (:-)Why .. once is enough
> sure you refuse to say it
I don't
> because it will discover you as an imbecile !!
Nope
> anyway
> lets see if you will say it
> loud and clear !!
Look up a physics text .. there are plenty of definitions of frequency. I
agree with them. You can't understand them. You seem to think that the
frequency of some recurring event depends on how long you measure it for ..
that if you measure the frequency for one second, then the frequency if
different to if you measure it for two seconds, or half a second, or any
arbitrary time. That is the only possible explanation for you thinking that
E = hf is teim dependent and only defined for a duration of one second.
Y.Porat
> On Mar 9, 12:45 pm, "Ine > **not even a **theoretical * physicist
> **!!
>
> > > theory must be based on
> > > adequate -- experimental facts !!
> > > ATB
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ----------------
>
> > I've addressed your many errors and stupidities in the other thread (and
> > previously)
>
> ---------------------
(:-)
> the psychopath crook
> ***moron***gangster
> diverted me to his morons ng
>
> only the real Nazi professional
> pigshit gangsters
> do it
> so let anyone know who is that Nazi pigshit
> anonymous Inertial = Artful =Feuerbacher=Varney
> he will never discuss physics
> only Nazi gangsters pesonal politics
> is guiding them
> so
> i suggest to treat him a s such
> Y.P
> --------------------------
and i redirected my answer to a Nazi pigg-shit
that is the*** anonymous** =Inertial =Artful =Varney
Mafia
in short
you name it
so readers here should know with whom we are dealing and treat them
accordingly
including their 'science '
and better bypass them
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Inertial
> On Mar 9, 1:21 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 12:45 pm, "Ine > **not even a **theoretical * physicist
>> **!!
>>
>> > > theory must be based on
>> > > adequate -- experimental facts !!
>> > > ATB
>> > > Y.Porat
>> > > ----------------
>>
>> > I've addressed your many errors and stupidities in the other thread
>> > (and
>> > previously)
>>
>> ---------------------
> (:-)
>> the psychopath crook
>> ***moron***gangster
>> diverted me to his morons ng
Its where you belng
>> only the real Nazi professional
>> pigshit gangsters
>> do it
Only gets done to real monrons like you
>> so let anyone know who is that Nazi pigshit
>> anonymous Inertial = Artful =Feuerbacher=Varney
>> he will never discuss physics
I always discuss physics .. you don't understand it
>> only Nazi gangsters pesonal politics
>> is guiding them
>> so
>> i suggest to treat him a s such
Fuck you
>> Y.P
>> --------------------------
> and i redirected my answer to a Nazi pigg-shit
> that is the*** anonymous** =Inertial =Artful =Varney
> Mafia
You are obsessed and delusional
> in short
> you name it
> so readers here should know with whom we are dealing and treat them
> accordingly
> including their 'science '
> and better bypass them
Fuck you
Y.Porat
and again and agiain
(another sign for an imbecile sub intelligent creature :
he cannot realize that i am not falling to his
'moron' trap (:-)
---------
the psychopath spammer
tries just now to divert the thread to his moron ng
were he belongs
including loss of self control by the f word
(:-)
just by lass the psycho
Y.P
----------------
-----------------
Inertial
Yet you keep posting .. what a moron
> ---------
> the psychopath spammer
> tries just now to divert the thread to his moron ng
> were he belongs
No .. just making sure your posts end up where they belong
> including loss of self control by the f word
> (:-)
> just by lass the psycho
Fuck off you senile old fart.
Y.Porat
> Here is my better definition about the range
> future !!! it was not yet been found!!
>
>
>
> 0 > n <<<< 1.0000
>
> here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
>
>
> a
> only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells
> (actually it can be other devices that are activated
> by photon electric cells )
>
> b
> a Led torch
> c
> the experiment must be in a background light
> that **does not* activate the above Cells !!..
> iow light wave that is long enough
> the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit )
>
> so
> 1
> light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells
> (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!!
>
> better do it for much less than a second !!
> (half or 1/4 second etc )
>
> 2
> follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you calculator
> the zero start figures are a ctivated and then
> *disappear*
> 3
> what do you get there ??
>
> you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the
> calculator activation ('life time' )--
>
> is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION*
> OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!**
> but more then zero time !!!
>
>
> historic copyright !
>
> Yehiel Porat
> Mars 2010
> TIA
> ------------------
andhere is another discussion
between me and Igor in another thread
that is relevant
---------------------
quote
> > theory must be based on
> > adequate -- experimental facts !!
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> At least you're laying things out, albeit not sufficiently for anyone
> to actually do an experiment. What numbers should we be aware of?
> What tolerances are necessary for the apparati? And more importantly,
> are there any limitations on the appartati that would prevent us from
> measuring the very thing you wish to measure? Ask yourself these
> questions, provide some real answers, and maybe we can turn you into a
> real scientist. A mediocre one perhaps, but there's hope even for
> you.
-----------------
you have to understand that ny experiment
is a very basi simple one
it is not initiated by CERN (:-)
but are you sure that a surprizingly simple experiment
does not mean anything
my claim is the it is rather its simplicity
that every one can do it
that makes it powerful
you have a trong assumption that an experiment therse
days bust be terifically complicated
2
my experiment is actually a QUALITATIVE ONE!!
though i indicated some even mathematical
LIMITS FOR ITS RESULTS
it is
0 > n <<< 1.000
fo rmaly it is some qualitative numeric limits!!
the great innovation is that it is breaking th e
cureent paradigm that a single photon energy formula
is
E=hf !!
allthe peole here stared their resonses to me
by 'knowing '' that thedefinition of a single photon is
E=hf
IT IS RECORDED and no one can deny it
so my limitation of that n
to be more than zero
but less than 1.000 is unprecedented
moreover
i suggeted that simple experiment
that showes clearly that th elimits i defined
are verified by that simple experiment
and there is a say
'inorder of killing a fly
you dont need cannons!!
the realwisdom is to use the minimal effort
inorder of proving something
SIMPLISITY IS NOT A MISADVANTAGE!
actually remember O cum razor rule!
ie
the simpler the better !!!
indeed waht you cant stand is sort of
'why the hell** i ** didnt do it '' ....
3 btw
did **you * do that experiment ??
had you doneit you might undersatnd and appreciate
it better
and please dont tell me what he psychopath Inertial told me
he said sort of
'i dont need to do it
i know you are wrong without doing it '!!
that is a master-peace of a crook say !
physics is first of all
experiment based
(PD thought me that (:-)
there are a lot of cases even in science
that ere sort of
'Columbus egg '
from the kind of
' to hell how is it that i ddint think about it"!!!
but sometimes you need to work many years
to do something surprizingly simple and easy !!
and evenso
is an unprecedented step forwards
actually i told again ad afain:
even now i ddint define ther real single photon!!
NO ONE UNTIL NOW EVER DID IT
INCLUDING THIS VERY MOMENT !
what i did is just one step forwards
towards the final definition of the real single photon energy
anyway
waht is clear tome is that that n
must be extremely smaller than 1.000
i defind it is
n <<<<<< 1.0000 !!
iow
i defined (if you like -predicted )
the **range in which the real SINGLE photons energy might be found
in future !
and not least
the range in which it will NOT be found1
anyway
Thank you Igor for your interest
and apposite questions and remarks
-------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Inertial
It also proves nothing .. its a pointless experiment as-far-as what you are
claiming it to show.
All it shows is that in half a second you get half as many photons as in one
second. So you get half the number of E= hf photons in half a second to
what you get in a whole second. So you get half the energy in half a second
than one second.
That is completely compatible with the experimentally derived E = hf formula
for a photon.
> but are you sure that a surprizingly simple experiment
> does not mean anything
Nothing relevant to your claim
> my claim is the it is rather its simplicity
> that every one can do it
Of course .. but it isn't relevant.
> that makes it powerful
> you have a trong assumption that an experiment therse
> days bust be terifically complicated
No need to be complicated .. but has to be relevant. It actually has to
TEST something. You need to make a prediction with your formula that is
different to other theories predictions. You haven't. So its pointless.
> 2
> my experiment is actually a QUALITATIVE ONE!!
And still does nothing to support your case. It supports that case of the
existing experimentally derived physics.
> though i indicated some even mathematical
>
> LIMITS FOR ITS RESULTS
> it is
>
> 0 > n <<< 1.000
> fo rmaly it is some qualitative numeric limits!!
> the great innovation is that it is breaking th e
> cureent paradigm that a single photon energy formula
> is
>
> E=hf !!
Which it is .. we have measured it.
You lying and saying it is not E = hf is just that .. a lie.
> allthe peole here stared their resonses to me
> by 'knowing '' that thedefinition of a single photon is
> E=hf
Which it is .. experiments (real ones) wre done and that was what was found.
> IT IS RECORDED and no one can deny it
Of course it is. Why would anyone deny a result like that that is one of
the key formulas of quantum mechanics and electrodynamics that enabled
devices like you photo-electric calculator to be built.
> so my limitation of that n
> to be more than zero
> but less than 1.000 is unprecedented
Its nonsense.
> moreover
> i suggeted that simple experiment
> that showes clearly that th elimits i defined
> are verified by that simple experiment
No .. it shows that the current physics explains it just fine
> and there is a say
> 'inorder of killing a fly
> you dont need cannons!!
> the realwisdom is to use the minimal effort
> inorder of proving something
But you have proved NOTHING.
> SIMPLISITY IS NOT A MISADVANTAGE!
> actually remember O cum razor rule!
> ie
> the simpler the better !!!
> indeed waht you cant stand is sort of
> 'why the hell** i ** didnt do it '' ....
It achieves nothing .. it proves nothing .. nor is it anything new.
> 3 btw
> did **you * do that experiment ??
No need.
> had you doneit you might undersatnd and appreciate
> it better
> and please dont tell me what he psychopath Inertial told me
> he said sort of
> 'i dont need to do it
Why would we .. we know what happens. Done the same things lots of times
back when I had a solar-powered calculator.
> i know you are wrong without doing it '!!
> that is a master-peace of a crook say !
> physics is first of all
> experiment based
yes .. you did the experiment and reported the results .. we don't need to
do it again.
> (PD thought me that (:-)
> there are a lot of cases even in science
> that ere sort of
> 'Columbus egg '
> from the kind of
> ' to hell how is it that i ddint think about it"!!!
>
> but sometimes you need to work many years
> to do something surprizingly simple and easy !!
>
> and evenso
> is an unprecedented step forwards
its utter nonsense and denial of experimental evidence that led to E = hf.
> actually i told again ad afain:
> even now i ddint define ther real single photon!!
> NO ONE UNTIL NOW EVER DID IT
> INCLUDING THIS VERY MOMENT !
Wrong. its been well defined for decades
> what i did is just one step forwards
> towards the final definition of the real single photon energy
E = hf .. That is it. .we know that. We've meausred it.
> anyway
> waht is clear tome is that that n
> must be extremely smaller than 1.000
Nope. It IS 1. E = hf
> i defind it is
> n <<<<<< 1.0000 !!
Which has no basis in experiment.. indeed, it goes completely against
experiment
> iow
> i defined (if you like -predicted )
> the **range in which the real SINGLE photons energy might be found
> in future !
Nope .. we have already found it ,.. it is E = hf
> and not least
>
> the range in which it will NOT be found1
It already has been. you are (as usual) both decades behind real physcisc
and wrong
> anyway
> Thank you Igor for your interest
> and apposite questions and remarks
When are you going to learn physics instead of making wild guesses and
ignoring evidence?
Y.y.Porat
indeed, it goes completely against
> experiment
>
> > iow
> > i defined (if you like -predicted )
> > the **range in which the real SINGLE photons energy might be found
> > in future !
>
> Nope .. we have already found it ,.. it is E = hf
>
> > and not least
>
> > the range in which it will NOT be found1
>
> It already has been. you are (as usual) both decades behind real physcisc
> and wrong
>
> > anyway
> > Thank you Igor for your interest
> > and apposite questions and remarks
>
> When are you going to learn physics instead of making wild guesses and
> ignoring evidence?
IMBECILE
****PSYCHOPATH** pig subhuman creature
Mr psychopath
if you dont like me
discus with teacher Josef Goebbels not with me
you have a lot of better people than me to discuss
with
that what any** SANE* person would do !!
so even by that we have a mathematical prove that
you are an uncurable psychopath crook!!
BTW
i have now about 700 readers
do you know how many do you have ?? (:-)
you and anyone .can see it in your fucken profile ..
(and even that few is due to your constant smelling my ass (:-)
2
the psychopath retard - realizedat last
that he cant anymore
divert my posts to his psychopathic crooks ng s (:-)
------------..
NEXT ( for sane people )
Y.P
----------------------
---------------------
Inertial
"Y.y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab3d7d14-718e-4909...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 12:34 am, "Inertial" > Which has no basis in experiment..
> indeed, it goes completely against
>> experiment
>>
>> > iow
>> > i defined (if you like -predicted )
>> > the **range in which the real SINGLE photons energy might be found
>> > in future !
>>
>> Nope .. we have already found it ,.. it is E = hf
>>
>> > and not least
>>
>> > the range in which it will NOT be found1
>>
>> It already has been. you are (as usual) both decades behind real
>> physcisc
>> and wrong
>>
>> > anyway
>> > Thank you Igor for your interest
>> > and apposite questions and remarks
>>
>> When are you going to learn physics instead of making wild guesses and
>> ignoring evidence?
> --------------------
> IMBECILE
> ****PSYCHOPATH** pig subhuman creature
> Mr psychopath
You just described yourself again
> if you dont like me
> discus with teacher Josef Goebbels not with me
He's not my teacher .. maybe he was yours?
> you have a lot of better people than me to discuss
> with
> that what any** SANE* person would do !!
You wouldn't know what sane people do
> so even by that we have a mathematical prove that
> you are an uncurable psychopath crook!!
Nope
> BTW
> i have now about 700 readers
> do you know how many do you have ?? (:-)
I don't care.
> you and anyone .can see it in your fucken profile ..
I don't have one
> (and even that few is due to your constant smelling my ass (:-)
You do post a lot of shit
> 2
> the psychopath retard - realizedat last
> that he cant anymore
> divert my posts to his psychopathic crooks ng s (:-)
Again .. no physics from Porat. You're a joke
Y.Porat
since it seems to me that Igor orothers ddinfolow
the previous discussions
or didn understand the purpous of my
simple experiment
i will bring it here form the
'curved space time- thread :
---------------------
first a quote from there
and then some clarification about the
purpous of that eperiment:
-------------
quote
> > Y.Porat
> Again, what experiment are you talking about? So far all I see is
> nonsensical gibberish.
------------------------------
you see nonsense giberish because you are
a fucken crook bolshevic Pig lier gangster !!!
--------------
To do an experiment, we need to know what type
> of apparatus to use
-----------
i told youinbecile amthematician
all you need it any led light source
and an apparat that is energized by photo electric cells
what i s that you dont understand about it
imbecile ???armchair fucken crook pig !! mathematics mumbler
that apparently never di d any experiment
--------------------------
and what the tolerances are, for starters.
any tolerance to be a Led light that can activate
a photoelectric cell
it is so simpe and obvious that no 'cleaver' tolerances are needed
the only thing you need is that the led torch
will activate the photon electric cell
nothing simpler than that
'for killing a fly you dont need you fucken Cannons'
got it idiot parrot ??
or it is too complicated for a pompous fucken armchair
mathemticain !!
-----------------
We
> also need to know what materials to use.
----------------
(:-)
use radiative radiuim idiot
what is the material of a Led torch??
do you want the material of a Photon electric cell
any student in a secondaty school
knowes that it is mostly based on silicon crystals
BUT ANYWAY
WHAT IS ALL THAT RELEVANT TO A SIMPLE
EXPERIMENT WITH LIGHT AND PHOTO- ELECTRIC CELLS
plus a pair of eyes that can notice the difference
between a screed of a pocket computer
that is active during one second
or 1/10 of a second??
cant you genius physicist LIKE YOU notice that difference??
do you need and Atomic clock for that !!??
--------------------
So far, none of this has
> been laid out in your gibberish. So where is it?
------------------
any student of a secondary scool
will understand it
it is only a physicist that deals with HIggsBosons
that cant uinderstant it
anyway
DONT FARTH JUST DO IT WITH YOUR FUCKEN HANDS
(provided that you ever did any sinple expweriment
or may be the most complicated thing you did
is to hold a pencil in your hands !1
and you will have no more questions
it wilbe self understandable
that photon energy
is emitted in LESS than one second
the only' intelligent' thing you should understand
is that
the background light should *not* activate the cells
iow
only the Led light should activate it !!
i thought it is self understandable for a semi intelligent person....
that dios not need cleaver specification ...(:-)
iow
the experiment is much simpler ansd even loks promitive but that is
not its disadvantage
but rather its big advantage
2
was it complicated to
you to understand that he pocket screen activation
is done by photon energy ?
or that
you see there overlap of **TIME life *
BETWEEN THE led activity (less than a second )
and the screen acivity done by the cells
that emmit electrons --
that activate the screen ??
and again
in order to shoot a rabbit
you dont need cannons !!
--------------------
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
end of quote
and now
the purpose of my experiment:
------------
it is
1
first of all to show once and for all that
PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION IS --
**TIME DEPENDENT **!!
2
to show that hte curent 'understanding 'that
the definitionof a single photon emission is
just h f
is wrong !!
f i s one second defined since
f is
number of wavelengths PER ONE SECOND !!!
so
the experiment shows that
photon energy emission (as time dependent)
can be done
IN LESS THAN A SECOND!!
ACTUALLY MUCH LESS THAN A SECOND
3
photon energy emission takes more that
A ZERO TIME **
iow
it is not instantaneous
yet in any case
it can be during much less than a second
full stop )
iow
fits my limmits on 'n' of
E single photon =h f n
while :
0 > n <<<< 1.000000
TIA
(not to the anonymous Inertial = artful etc etc )
Y.Porat
-----------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fc619ee-ef9b-456e...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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!!
I has been . Planck did it. He found E = hf is the energy of a single
photon. That formula is not time dependent .. a photon has the same energy
whether it exists for a fraction of a second or hundreds of years. It has
the same energy regardless of whetehr that energy is used up quickly or more
slowly.
>> E single photon = hf n
That is refuted by plancks experiments (among others)
That in half a second you get lots of photons arriving on the photo-electric
cell .. the ones that manage to do so import their E = hf energy and it is
used to free electrons and so form a current. /
>>
>> some hints:
>> you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the
>> calculator activation ('life time' )--
>>
>> is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION*
>> OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!**
Yes . .there are some delays in the process due to the electronics in the
circuit. eg LCD calculator displays are fairly slow, and usually there is
some storage device in the calculator so that it can keep power supplied for
a short while after the cell stops generating current.
>> (in our case less than a second
>> but more then zero time !!!
So what? E = hf is still the energy of
>> Q E D !!
>>
>> historic copyright !
You can't copyright what has been done thousands or millions of times by
people using claculators (not to mention the experiments that led to the
development of photoelectric cells
>> Yehiel Porat
>> Mars 2010
>> TIA
BAHAHA
>> ------------------
>
> since it seems to me that Igor orothers ddinfolow
> the previous discussions
No n eed .. I've used them before .. I know how they behave. There is
nothing unexpected happening
> or didn understand the purpous of my
> simple experiment
It has no purpsoe
Which you have not done
> 2
> to show that hte curent 'understanding 'that
> the definitionof a single photon emission is
> just h f
> is wrong !!
Which you have not done.
> f i s one second defined since
> f is
> number of wavelengths PER ONE SECOND !!!
Nonsense
> so
> the experiment shows that
> photon energy emission (as time dependent)
> can be done
> IN LESS THAN A SECOND!!
Of course it can .. because E = hf is NOT TIME DEPENDENT . There is no
place for a time in that formula. The energy of a photon is just the energy
of a photon.
> ACTUALLY MUCH LESS THAN A SECOND
Derrrrr
> 3
> photon energy emission takes more that
> A ZERO TIME **
Photons take time to travel.
Though a photon releases its energy immediately when it is destroyed (in an
instant) that does not mean the energy release must be used all at once.
Certainly your experiment has many many delays in it due ot the calculator
circuitry and components
> iow
> it is not instantaneous
>
> yet in any case
> it can be during much less than a second
Of course it can ... gees
> full stop )
> iow
> fits my limmits on 'n' of
> E single photon =h f n
> while :
> 0 > n <<<< 1.000000
There is no 'n' in E = hf. There is no time duration factor in E = hf
> TIA
> (not to the anonymous Inertial = artful etc etc )
> Y.Porat
Tough. I will keep on pointing out your lies and nonsense as long as you
make them.
Y.Porat
tried again to divert me to his pigs ng
any one can see it by responding to him
yet that psychopaht stil didnt got it
tha he cant catch me in his psychopathic trap
no one except this dirty Nazi pig is doing it
so here is my response in another way
-------------------------
> > ACTUALLY MUCH LESS THAN A SECOND
>
> Derrrrr
>
> > 3
> > photon energy emission takes more that
> > A ZERO TIME **
>
> Photons take time to travel.
>
> Though a photon releases its energy immediately when it is destroyed (in an
> instant) that does not mean the energy release must be used all at once.
> Certainly your experiment has many many delays in it due ot the calculator
> circuitry and components
>
> > iow
> > it is not instantaneous
>
> > yet in any case
> > it can be during much less than a second
>
> Of course it can ... gees
>
> > full stop )
> > iow
> > fits my limmits on 'n' of
> > E single photon =h f n
> > while :
> > 0 > n <<<< 1.000000
>
> There is no 'n' in E = hf. There is no time duration factor in E = hf
>
> > TIA
> > (not to the anonymous Inertial = artful etc etc )
> > Y.Porat
>
> Tough. I will keep on pointing out your lies and nonsense as long as you
> make them.
---------------------
psychopath imbecile!!
the imbecile sublieutenant Nazi creep
did not understand that
the photon emission is as long as the Led light
is on
and it stops immediately as the light is off
now the light is on --for say half a second --
and the screen is on as well half of a second!!
what is the explanation of the psychopath pig for that overlap of
time between light duration
and screen on duration !!
**is it not time dependence ??****!!!
2
the imbecile sub human - said that there is delay of time because
(listed carefully )
because i takes time to travel in space ?? (:-)
hey monkey pigg psychopath crook
how long it takes the light to travel
40 centimeters ???(between the torch and the cell ??
can you notice it ??!! imbecile pig ??
i thought that at least we can give him the credit
of a gangster
now i see that the even title gangster is too big on him (:-)
now i see the the crippled retard
has to be hospitalized in a hostel of retards !!
our screen is active as** long**
(time duration!) a s you like !!
dependent only on the
TIME DURATION you activate the torch !!
is it not TIME DEPENDENCE ??
Hey Nazi pig ??
btw
i responded the retarded psycho
just in sake of the other readers !!!
------------------
so
bye psychopath crook leech
go discuss with Josef Goebbels your teacher
and take your pills
----------------------
next
Y.P
-----------------
Y.Porat
case one
th e torch is activated during 0.4 second
case 2
the torch is activated during 0.8 seconds
now my question:
No 1
in which case more energy was emitted?
i think that any sane physicist will
say
in case 2
----------------
now another question:
No 2
how many photons took action
in case 1
or in case 2
question 3
is it the same number of them or not??
question 4
can we know how many photons took action
in case 1 or in case 2 ??
question No 5
can we know how many *single photons*
were involved in
case 1
or in case No 2
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Inertial
Fine
> case one
>
> th e torch is activated during 0.4 second
>
> case 2
> the torch is activated during 0.8 seconds
> now my question:
>
> No 1
>
> in which case more energy was emitted?
> i think that any sane physicist will
> say
>
> in case 2
Of course .. because twice as many photons, each with time dependent energy
E = hf. If the energy of each photon was time dependent, then you would NOT
get twice as much energy all up, as you'd have twice the photon with MORE
than twice the energy each.
> ----------------
> now another question:
>
> No 2
> how many photons took action
>
> in case 1
> or in case 2
>
> question 3
> is it the same number of them or not??
Twice as many photons, each with time dependent energy E = hf. If the
energy of each photon was time dependent, then you would NOT get twice as
much energy all up, as you'd have twice the photon with MORE than twice the
energy each.
> question 4
> can we know how many photons took action
> in case 1 or in case 2 ??
Yes .. if we have monochromatic light and we measure the energy received and
divide by the energy of a single photon (E = hf) then we get the number of
photons.
From an LED torch with white light, there are a large range of frequencies
(and so energy) and we can't count the number of photons. But we can
estimate if we know the spectrum.
> question No 5
> can we know how many *single photons*
> were involved in
> case 1
> or in case No 2
That is the same question. All photons are single photons.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
(:-)
didi you said TIME DEPENDENT ??
(:-) (:-)
it is the first time i her it from you ----?
time dependent ??!!
JUST BRING US A QUOTE FROM YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS
IN WHICH YOU SAID THAT
PHOTON **ENERGY EMISSION** IS TIME DEPENDENT !!! ***in less than a
second**
AGAIN -- IN (0.4 or 0.8 of a second)
DEPENDENT IN **LESS THAN A SECOND**
OF TIME ??
9just to remind you
'your fomula was
E hf n
while your( and even Igors )- was n
as integers !!!
and as i know you now you will ry to
escape of it but it is all documented
-----
(as my priory designed (for the first time)
specially for proving my claims for it --
(as my unprecedented experiment shows clearly !!)
..
----------------
again time dependent (what a joy .....)
i can believe my eys !!(:-)
dependent on what time ???
where do you see a variable time*
in less than a second
in hf ??!!!
where do you see time as 0.4 or 0.8 seconds
in that formula of yours ??!!
as my new experiment shows ??
-----------------
Y.P
-------------------------
Inertial
AS I have claimed from the begininning , the TOTAL energy a stream of light
delivers is time dependent because the NUMBER of photons arriving depends on
the time. The energy of each photon does NOT depend on the time .. and
there is no time dependence in E = hf.
> (:-) (:-)
> it is the first time i her it from you ----?
> time dependent ??!!
No .. I've been saying this from the first time you posted you puzzle
> JUST BRING US A QUOTE FROM YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS
> IN WHICH YOU SAID THAT
> PHOTON **ENERGY EMISSION** IS TIME DEPENDENT !!! ***in less than a
> second**
In every single one I have made on the subject of energy delivered by light
(as opposed to a single photon)
> AGAIN -- IN (0.4 or 0.8 of a second)
Doesn't matter how long (as I've said many times)
> DEPENDENT IN **LESS THAN A SECOND**
> OF TIME ??
Doesn't matter if more or less than a second .. just how many photon arrive.
> 9just to remind you
> 'your fomula was
>
> E hf n
No .. my formula for single photon is E = hf
For a stream of photons, E = rthf, where r is the number of photons per
second arriving and t is the time.
I wrote an E = nhf formula for single photons in a post where I was refuting
it (proving why it was wrong). That does NOT mean I ever claimed it was
correct.
> while your( and even Igors )- was n
> as integers !!!
I never had said that any n for single photons other than 1 was correct.
> and as i know you now you will ry to
> escape of it but it is all documented
Indeed it is .. your lies don't alter the facts.
> (as my priory designed (for the first time)
> specially for proving my claims for it --
> (as my unprecedented experiment shows clearly !!)
There is nothing unprecendented about shining an LED torch on a calculator
> ..
> ----------------
> again time dependent (what a joy .....)
It what I've been saying from the beginning. The total energy in a stream
of photons (beam of light) is tdependend on how long it is one. If its on
for twice the time, you get twice the energy. But each single photon still
has energy E = hf.
> i can believe my eys !!(:-)
Then clearly you've not been reading any of my posts. That doesn't surprise
me.
> dependent on what time ???
How long the stream of photons is active
> where do you see a variable time*
> in less than a second
> in hf ??!!!
E = hf is not the formula for the energy in a stream of photons. it is the
energy in a single photon. And THAT energy is not time dependent.
Gees .. how stupid are you?
> where do you see time as 0.4 or 0.8 seconds
> in that formula of yours ??!!
In E = hf .. it is not there, because it SHOULD NOT be there. The energy of
a single photon is NOT time dependent
> as my new experiment shows ??
You 'new' (read as: been done by thousands of people before) experiment
does not show anything about the energy of a single photon.
(cross post to sci.chem removed as always .. this thread does not belong
there)
Y.Porat
1
that is a new formula of yours
you ddint say it before !!
it was folowing your discussuion with me
you never saied it before
it is recorded !!!
i saie dit before you by my
0< n >>>> 1.00000 !!
and my above definition is not about many photons
but the REAL SINGLE PHOTON**
see al the titles of my threads alway about
th ereal single !! !!
mytorch and photoelectric cell was toshow
that photons can be active
less than a second
WHILE IN THAT EXPERIMENTS
IT IS DONE BY A HUGE NUMBER OFPHOTONS
THAT NON OF THEM IS ACTIVE MORE THAJ A SECOND
quit ethe contrary -- less than a second
and that is waht i said all laong
that th ereal singlwephoton is muchless than a eecond defined
so now it is your turn to tell us
WHAT IS THAT f frequency??
what is its definition in that hf
Y.Porat
----------------------
-
Inertial
Yes .. I did. I also expressed it as E = Nhf where N is the total number of
photons arriving.
> it was folowing your discussuion with me
> you never saied it before
> it is recorded !!!
Wrong. This is all old old stuff .. physics have known this since Planck
when he found experimentally the E = hf is the energy of a single photon ..
and even earlier there was a corpuscular theory of light (but they didn't
know E = hf then)
> i saie dit before you by my
> 0< n >>>> 1.00000 !!
Nope. You never wrote E = rthf
> and my above definition is not about many photons
> but the REAL SINGLE PHOTON**
Then it is WRONG !! We know from experiment the energy of a single photon
is E = hf. I've told you this over and over.
> see al the titles of my threads alway about
> th ereal single !! !!
I know .. and when you say it is not E = hf, you are WRONG !! We know from
experiment the energy of a single photon is E = hf. I've told you this over
and over.
> mytorch and photoelectric cell was toshow
> that photons can be active
> less than a second
Of course they are .. they can last from a very small time (from torch to
calculator) or a very long time (from a distance galaxy to us). I've told
you this over and over.
Regardless of how long they take to travel, or how long it take to use up
the energy they release, the energy is still E = hf. I've told you this
over and over.
> WHILE IN THAT EXPERIMENTS
> IT IS DONE BY A HUGE NUMBER OFPHOTONS
> THAT NON OF THEM IS ACTIVE MORE THAJ A SECOND
Of course none of them are. They don't need to be. You are obsessed with
this ridiculous notion that physics somehow says photons mus tbe active for
a second. It says nothing of the sort.
> quit ethe contrary -- less than a second
FAR FAR less.
> and that is waht i said all laong
That is what *I* have said all along
> that th ereal singlwephoton is muchless than a eecond defined
It can exist for any length of time. Its energy is still E = hf. I've told
you this over and over.
> so now it is your turn to tell us
> WHAT IS THAT f frequency??
It is the frequency of the light (EMR). I've told you this over and over.
> what is its definition in that hf
It is the energy of a single photon of light (EMR) which is of frequency f.
I've told you this over and over.
It is not time dependent. It has nothing to do with how long a photon
exists, or the period of time in which the energy it carries is used.
How many times do you need to be told this?
Y.Porat
see the definition of f in Hertz
quote from Vikipedia :
Hertz
The hertz (symbol: Hz) is the SI unit of **frequency** defined as the
number of cycles per second ****of a periodic phenomenon
----------------------
end of quote
do you see that second there ??
(one second) again one second !!
so wil we admit at last that
hf (to define" a single photon!!")
is one second defined ?
and it does not cover experimental facts
of less than a second photon
2
all my thread dealth with **a single photon enrgy definition
single photon
so will you admit now that hf
(as defined by one second )
cannot be the definition of the real single photon
3
in my above experiment
no matter how many photns were active there
**non of them* was active during a second**
it was active only 0.8 second !!
so can we say that in my experiment
any of photons that were active --
were single photons ???!!
**while your definition of a single photon
is hf ??**
so in my experiment there were
0.8 single photons ??
while f is **one** second dependent defined - ??
Y.P
---------------------
Inertial
I know exactly what it is
> quote from Vikipedia :
> Hertz
> The hertz (symbol: Hz) is the SI unit of **frequency** defined as the
> number of cycles per second ****of a periodic phenomenon
Yes .. we use seconds as the unit for time in SI units.
> ----------------------
> end of quote
> do you see that second there ??
Yes I do.
> (one second) again one second !!
Of course .. that is what the unit of time is in SI units.
> so wil we admit at last that
> hf (to define" a single photon!!")
> is one second defined ?
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has nothing to do with a second. The UNITS have seconds in them. Just
like the units for speed (metres per second) have seconds in them . That
dose not mean cars (say) are second defined because their speed is in metres
per second .. nor are they all one metre long because the speed has metres
in it. Nor when they are drive do you have to drive them for only a second
and for a distance of one metre. This is the sort of nonsense you so-called
logic results in. Do you hear how UTTERLY STUPID you sound?
> and it does not cover experimental facts
> of less than a second photon
Yes .. it does. It covers ANY LENGTH OF TIME
> 2
> all my thread dealth with **a single photon enrgy definition
> single photon
Yes .. E = hf
> so will you admit now that hf
> (as defined by one second )
It isn't
> cannot be the definition of the real single photon
It is. You are simply a complete moron.
> 3
> in my above experiment
> no matter how many photns were active there
> **non of them* was active during a second**
Yes .. I told you that over and over
> it was active only 0.8 second !!
None of them were active anywhere NEAR that long
> so can we say that in my experiment
> any of photons that were active --
> were single photons ???!!
Yes .. every single one was a single one. Gees
> **while your definition of a single photon
> is hf ??**
Yes .. that is what Planck found was the energy of a SINGLE photon. No
matter how long it exists or how long its energy takes to be used up
> so in my experiment there were
> 0.8 single photons ??
What a load of nonsense !!!!!!!!!!!!! No !!!!!!!!!!!!
> while f is **one** second dependent defined - ??
Photons have NOTHING TO DO WITH A SECOND AT ALL !!!!!!!!!!! No more than
cars are second defined because you can express their speed as meters per
second (nor are they one metre long for that reason) .. your logic is
totally flawed.
You're really a complete moron. How you were ever able to manage a career
that involved using any mathematics is mindboggling .. thank god I never
have to drive on any of the bridges you reckon you helped build.
Y.Porat
I know exactly what it is
> quote from Vikipedia :
> Hertz
> The hertz (symbol: Hz) is the SI unit of **frequency** defined as the
> number of cycles per second ****of a periodic phenomenon
Yes .. we use seconds as the unit for time in SI units.
> ----------------------
> end of quote
> do you see that second there ??
Yes I do.
> (one second) again one second !!
Of course .. that is what the unit of time is in SI units.
> so wil we admit at last that
> hf (to define" a single photon!!")
> is one second defined ?
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-------------------
imbecile moron!!
---------------------
It has nothing to do with a second. The UNITS have seconds in them.
Just
like the units for speed (metres per second) have seconds in them .
That
dose not mean cars (say) are second defined because their speed is in
metres
per second .. nor are they all one metre long because the speed has
metres
in it. Nor when they are drive do you have to drive them for only a
second
and for a distance of one metre. This is the sort of nonsense you so-
called
logic results in. Do you hear how UTTERLY STUPID you sound?
----------------------------
you heared that stupid argument form PD
but both of you
ddin realize yest
that all those units are multiplied
sone of them or allodf them by
multipliers !!
they are not lest alone in realilty !!
--------------
> and it does not cover experimental facts
> of less than a second photon
Yes .. it does. It covers ANY LENGTH OF TIME
----------------------
idiot moron
it does not cover farction od\f a second
if you dont admit that
hf is **one second* dependent
you are not a partner for any discussion with me
certainly not about the curent issue
i showed itr clrarly in my experiment that
all th e photons there
no matter how many of them!!
no one of theme act more then
actually only say
0.8 secon
-------------------
so that is enough to prove that
hf (defined by ONLY one second
cannot cover all real cases as i showed in that simple
experiment
if you dont understand and admit that
Go discuss with your teacher
Josef Goebbels !!
-----------------------
the psychopath pig Inertial; anomymous Artful
you name it
diverted me to his disturbed psychopat
to his private psychopathic ngs
he still ddint learn that he cant do ity to me
**as usual**
what a sore learner !!
BYE
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.P
-----------------------------
>
Inertial
Yes you are
> ---------------------
>
> It has nothing to do with a second. The UNITS have seconds in them.
> Just
> like the units for speed (metres per second) have seconds in them .
> That
> dose not mean cars (say) are second defined because their speed is in
> metres
> per second .. nor are they all one metre long because the speed has
> metres
> in it. Nor when they are drive do you have to drive them for only a
> second
> and for a distance of one metre. This is the sort of nonsense you so-
> called
> logic results in. Do you hear how UTTERLY STUPID you sound?
> ----------------------------
> you heared that stupid argument form PD
No.
> but both of you
> ddin realize yest
> that all those units are multiplied
> sone of them or allodf them by
> multipliers !!
> they are not lest alone in realilty !!
And so you admit that just because there are seconds in a speed of (say)
60km/hr for a car, that does NOT mean that the definition of cars and how
fast it is going is only valid for an hour, and in particular that a car is
has to travel for a whole hour only, and cannot travel for less and be said
to have a speed of 60km/hr.
This is the 'logic' you are using for photons. it is nonsensical
> --------------
>
>
>> and it does not cover experimental facts
>> of less than a second photon
>
> Yes .. it does. It covers ANY LENGTH OF TIME
> ----------------------
> idiot moron
Yes, you are
> it does not cover farction od\f a second
It covers ANY TIME.
> if you dont admit that
> hf is **one second* dependent
It is NOT
> you are not a partner for any discussion with me
You are a moron.
> certainly not about the curent issue
> i showed itr clrarly in my experiment that
No .. you did not
> all th e photons there
> no matter how many of them!!
> no one of theme act more then
> actually only say
> 0.8 secon
Of course they don't .. I've been telling you that over and over.
Do you think a car driving at 60kn/hf must drive for a whole hour. And that
if you drive at that speed for less that an hour you have refuted that the
formula for speed is v = d/t ????
> -------------------
> so that is enough to prove that
> hf (defined by ONLY one second
No .. it does not. No more than you refute car speed of 60km /hr because a
car can drive at that speed for less than an hour
> cannot cover all real cases as i showed in that simple
> experiment
Yes. . it foes. I showed you how. You're a liar.
> if you dont understand and admit that
> Go discuss with your teacher
> Josef Goebbels !!
That's you
> -----------------------
> the psychopath pig
That's you
> Inertial; anomymous Artful
> you name it
> diverted me to his disturbed psychopat
> to his private psychopathic ngs
> he still ddint learn that he cant do ity to me
> **as usual**
> what a sore learner !!
> BYE
Fuck off moron.
Y.Porat
> 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!!
>
>
and now 13-03-2010
i have even a better finer definition
to the smallest photon energy emission :
--------------------------
since Robert Higgins informed us that
photon energy is detected during
exp -15 second
my finer detention will be as follows
E smallest photon energy = hj f n
while n is defined as :
0> n < exp -15
(and if you dont mind n is A SCALAR !!)
thank you Robert Higgins
you contributed something for the sake
of advance
'malgre vus ' (Frech spellling??
(in free transtaltion
('even if is against your wish'... !!)
anyway
thanks
Y.Porat
13-03-2010
=======================
-
Y.Porat
here is my update to h f n
th enew updated n based on Robert Higguns
information (and his responsibility)
n
of
E min = h f n
while n is
0 < n << exp -15
(n is a scalar !!!)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Inertial
It is still completely wrong, because WE KNOW FROM EXPERIMENT that it is a
FACT that the energy of a single photon is E = hf. You cannot change FACTS.
You are wasting everyone's time with your nonsense. Get a new hobby.
Robert Higgins
In other posts, you insist that frequency has units of seconds.
BZZZZZ! WRONG! Frequency has units of INVERSE seconds (s^-1). It can
also be written with units of cycles / second.
>
> --------------------------
> since Robert Higgins informed us that
> photon energy is detected during
> exp -15 second
> my finer detention will be as follows
God, you're stupid - I wrote that the INTERACTION TIME of a photon
during an ELECTRONIC TRANSITION is ~ 10^-15 s.
If you knew ANYTHING at all, you would have pointed out that the
relevant time for a VIBRATIONAL transition would be 10^-12 s. Of
course, you have no idea where those time scales come from.
>
> E smallest photon energy = hj f n
> while n is defined as :
>
> 0> n < exp -15
> (and if you dont mind n is A SCALAR !!)
Well, 0 is a scalar, and 10^-15 is a scalar, so your equation would be
completely meaningless (which it is already for other reasons) is n
were not ALSO a scalar.
>
> thank you Robert Higgins
You're welcome.
Y.Porat
wrote:
you understand nothing!!
of my innovation
Y.P
--------------------------------
Robert Higgins
You are correct - I don't understand nonsense.
What happened to the "physics arguments"?
Y.Porat
-----------------
so let me explain it may bebetter now:
since 6.6 exp -34
is a scalar we could say that my n is
6.6 exp -34 =my n ..
bu t that is not so simple
in practical use
actually as is it i s impossible practically
neither to locate such a photon
nore to produce it not to detect it
yioucannot detect something during
6.6 exp-34 seconds
not something that has a mass of
6.6 exp-34 kilograms !!!
it is beyond he ability of our tools !!
sowaht we can do inorder
to define the smallest real
real means that we have some practial control on it
that can be only coming closer
the the smallest is to find
experimentally
what is the*shortest time*
that a photon was lasting or active
(or to fine the samlest* mass* of it (:-)...)
it is certainly not exp-34 seconds
nor exp- kilograms ....!!
so
for instance
the claim that
a single photon can interfere
with itself
IS BASELESS !!
since in practice
no one ever isolated such a tiny photon energy !! nor controled it
it is obvious that
all those experiements done
with a SINGLE PHOTON
were actually done with *many *single* photons !!
not with the real single photon
so the QM paradigm that
a single photon can interfere with itself was *for the first time
refuted !!
or
the first time that any QM paradigm was refuted !!!
by me
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
thE the real *single photon*
WAS NEVER YET DETECTED !!
(real not theoretic!! )
2
and a question to the readers:
is it possible that f=1( in hf )
is the *smallest theoretic* photon energy ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Robert Higgins
Actually, neutrinos have a mass about 10^-36 kg, and they can be
detected. Photons, of course, have zero mass, and they are detected
all the time.
I don't understand where you are getting the figure of 6.6 x 10^-34
for seconds or kg, unless it is from Planck's constant, which 6.626 x
10^-34 J s.
>
> it is beyond he ability of our tools !!
> sowaht we can do inorder
>
> to define the smallest real
> real means that we have some practial control on it
> that can be only coming closer
> the the smallest is to find
> experimentally
>
> what is the*shortest time*
> that a photon was lasting or active
> (or to fine the samlest* mass* of it (:-)...)
>
> it is certainly not exp-34 seconds
> nor exp- kilograms ....!!
> so
> for instance
> the claim that
> a single photon can interfere
> with itself
> IS BASELESS !!
> since in practice
> no one ever isolated such a tiny photon energy !! nor controled it
I hate to tell you, but "single photon" experiments have been done for
a long time. You would save yourself a lot of trouble if you actually
read the literature. Read about the experiments that have been done.
You are raising invalid objections because you assume that the few
experiments you have heard about are the only ones being done.
> it is obvious that
> all those experiements done
> with a SINGLE PHOTON
> were actually done with *many *single* photons !!
> not with the real single photon
>
> so the QM paradigm that
> a single photon can interfere with itself was *for the first time
> refuted !!
NO.
> or
> the first time that any QM paradigm was refuted !!!
> by me
NO.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------
Y.Porat
the are dected because the y have mass(:-)
but tha tis not fo r here !!
> all the time.
>
> I don't understand where you are getting the figure of 6.6 x 10^-34
> for seconds or kg, unless it is from Planck's constant, which 6.626 x
> 10^-34 J s.
that is the only scalar there !!
now energy emission id lineray proprtional to
eithr mass
or time
(all theothres are ^2 )
sio we cant know yet to which of then to associate that scalar
it cannot be t o the two of them !!....
----------------
>
> > it is beyond he ability of our tools !!
>
> > to define the smallest real
> > real means that we have some practial control on it
> > that can be only coming closer
> > the the smallest is to find
> > experimentally
>
> > what is the*shortest time*
> > that a photon was lasting or active
> > (or to fine the samlest* mass* of it (:-)...)
>
> > it is certainly not exp-34 seconds
> > nor exp- kilograms ....!!
> > so
> > for instance
> > the claim that
> > a single photon can interfere
> > with itself
> > IS BASELESS !!
> > since in practice
> > no one ever isolated such a tiny photon energy !! nor controled it
>
> I hate to tell you, but "single photon" experiments have been done for
> a long time. You would save yourself a lot of trouble if you actually
> read the literature. Read about the experiments that have been done.
do you want to tell me that theexperiments
were dealing withj an energy of
6.6 exp-34 loules ??!!
can you immagine wahtis that amount of energy ??
moreover what made those people to 'know
that hey are dealing with such an emount of energy
or something that was lasting
is there anycuirent tool thatis
sensitive enough to detect an energy of
6.6. exp -34 koules ??!
---
6.6. exp -34 second ??!!
dont you see the absurd ??
------------
> You are raising invalid objections because you assume that the few
> experiments you have heard about are the only ones being done.
> -----------------
that is hand wavings
i am talking to you with figures !!
----------
> > it is obvious that
> > all those experiements done
> > with a SINGLE PHOTON
> > were actually done with *many *single* photons !!
> > not with the real single photon
>
> > so the QM paradigm that
> > a single photon can interfere with itself was *for the first time
> > refuted !!
>
> NO.
Yes (:-)
>
> > or
> > the first time that any QM paradigm was refuted !!!
> > by me
>
> NO.
yes (:-)
you start to talk (bring physics arguments )like Inertial (:-)
sort of
i as the vice Almighty say No ...
-------------
- 2
please dnt forgerget that me and other experiments proved that
photon energy emission is time dependent !!
ie
in two seconds it i smor ethan inonesecond
and more than is 0.4 seconds!!
you cant let experimental dataand facts
to disturb you ...
-----
3
if f i sbigger than 1
then again it is mor ethan the smallest energy
so
if we have f bigger than 1 we must (
(in order to find the
**smallet energy*) to restrict it back with a diminishing factor !!
-----------------
please dont forget that my op issue
is
***the **smalles***t possible photon energy ***!!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Y.Porat
> 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
>
> 2
> here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
>
> you need for it
>
> a
> only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells
> (actually it can be other devices that are activated
> by photon electric cells )
>
> b
> a Led torch
> c
> the experiment must be in a background light
> that **does not* activate the above Cells !!..
> iow light wave that is long enough
> the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit )
>
> so
> 1
> light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells
> (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!!
>
> (half or 1/4 second etc )
>
> 2
> follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you calculator
> the zero start figures are a ctivated and then
> *disappear*
> 3
> what do you get there ??
>
> some hints:
> you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the
> calculator activation ('life time' )--
>
> is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION*
> OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!**
> (in our case less than a second
> but more then zero time !!!
>
> Q E D !!
>
> historic copyright !
>
> Yehiel Porat
> Mars 2010
> TIA
> ------------------
and now i found even a betterdefinition of my above suggested n
since the Planck time is about
5 exp-44
that should be my better definition of n
so
===========================
E min photon = h f times 5 exp-44
============================
explantions will come later
14-03-2010
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
>
> 14-03-2010
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------
----------------------
now lets make the next step:
if we combine the plank scalar and the
planck time scalar
we get
the numerical definition of thesmalest
photon energy :
6.6 exp-34 times 5.38 exp-44
we get the numeric scalars
of the smallest phoron energy
and we will get
=============================
min photon energy= 3.55 exp -77 Joules
==============================
(provided i ddint miss multiplied it
correctly )
(the dimensions are settled to be energy) !!
my next step will be to
divide it by c^2
and get (as a 'by product' (:-))
the smallest photon *** mass***!!!
it is Indeed extremely small
BUT STILL NOT ZERO !! (:-)
(what a by product ..!!!...)
14-03-2010
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
---------------------
just wait for me in the corner
with my new advance
th e best thing in your you ddin in your life was to stay
anonymous !!(:-)
2
thanks psychopath piggy that you ddint divert my answer to your
psychopathic ng !!
Y.P
-------------------------
Y.P
Inertial
You have never made any advance in your life .. you never will. You are
going BACKWARDS .. because you LIE when you claim photon energy has never
been defined. IT HAS. IT HAS BEEN MEASURED LONG AGO. IT WAS FOUND TO BE E
= hf
Get that through you thick skull, old man
Inertial
You have NO innovation. Ignoring facts and LYING (like you do) is not
innovation. It is stupidity.
Inertial
You refute nothing .. you know nothing and you are a MORON. You are so
totally inept at physics that you don't even have the capacity to know how
totally wrong you are about it.
Inertial
And that is a TOTAL AND BLATANT *LIE*
You are a lying son of a bitch
> 2
> and a question to the readers:
> is it possible that f=1( in hf )
> is the *smallest theoretic* photon energy ??
NO .. gees. you are such a moron
Inertial
What a load of crap
> we get the numeric scalars
> of the smallest phoron energy
> and we will get
> =============================
> min photon energy= 3.55 exp -77 Joules
> ==============================
> (provided i ddint miss multiplied it
> correctly )
>
> (the dimensions are settled to be energy) !!
No .. h has to be DIVIDED by a time to give energy, you moron. Can't you
even do basic dimensional alaysis and get the units right?
> my next step will be to
> divide it by c^2
> and get (as a 'by product' (:-))
> the smallest photon *** mass***!!!
> it is Indeed extremely small
> BUT STILL NOT ZERO !! (:-)
> (what a by product ..!!!...)
>
> 14-03-2010
> ATB
> Y.Porat
You are so full of crap, its hilarious. Why do you bother with physics ..
you're a laughing stock. Save what little dignity you have left and leave
these newsgroups. You are an embarrassment
Y.Porat
the ONLY cleave thing he did in his life is
remaining a psycho f anonymous
(and rightly so (:-)!!
you place in the garbage of physics
is ensured
i suggest to by lass the psycho !!
Y.Porat
--------------
Inertial
You really are a nasty evil angry old man. And your 'advances' are
laughable mistakes a child would not even make. Get a new hobby. Physics
is WAAYYY beyond your limited mental abilities. You whole 'theory' of
photon energy is easily shown to be nonsense.
Y.Porat
> On Mar 14, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> yes indeed for Josef Goebbels i am a big embarrassment
> psychopath moron!!
> in the plank consatant time is a
> linear got it imbecile multiplier
> the second ^2
> is not linear
> but that is too much for a nazi pig
> to understand !!
> 2
> another profe of anazi pigg is that he is
> afraid AND RIGHLY SO
> from my answers
> therefor tries todivert meto his alt moron
> anyone who will respond to him will see it !
> now the funny thing is that this imnecile
> ddin notice that his constant efforths to divert me
> do not workd !!
> the only thing it is doing it is
> presenting that psychopath pig as such
> that cant be even a minimal gangster
whoevergangsters that sent him
are wasting ther money !!!
> Y.P
> -------------------
> (:-)
in additionto the above
a remark to the sane readers:
i used **only** the SCALAR PART OF THE
Planck TIME!!
ie only the 5.38 exp -44 figure !!!
(the psychopath anonymous gangster inertial
it is not even that he ever could thing about such innovation
even after you DO it and spoon feed him
the retarded psycho still cannot get it
his sick brain is so full of shit and hatred
and jealousy (so rightly so !!)
that he can spit out nothing then shit
please bypass that walking disaster to this ng !!
Y.P
------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------
Inertial
You can't just pick off a value independently of units. That's nonsense.
The value is completely arbitrary (ie unit dependent) So without the units
it has no meaning.
And you cannot multiply h (Joules x seconds) by time (seconds) to get
energy. You have to DIVIDE by time. The units are all wrong. This is
BASIC DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS. And you stuff it up
And if you are taking the shortest time .. that wil give you the LARGEST
frequency .. not the SMALLEST.
And your claims the E = hf is not the energy of a single photon are refuted
by experimental evidence the proves E = hf is a FACT.
You are wrong in so many ways it is ridiculous.
> (the psychopath anonymous gangster inertial
Not me
> it is not even that he ever could thing about such innovation
Its not innovation .. it is utter nonsense.
> even after you DO it and spoon feed him
> the retarded psycho still cannot get it
I get exactly what you're doing .. It is complete nonsense. It is NOT
physics. It is not even vaguely sensible.
> his sick brain is so full of shit and hatred
> and jealousy (so rightly so !!)
You just described yourself perfectly
> that he can spit out nothing then shit
You just described your posts perfectly
> please bypass that walking disaster to this ng !!
> Y.P
That is the advice everyone should take about you. You are nothing but a
nasty evil old nazi. The sooner you die, the better off the world will be.
And I expect it won't be long.
Y.Porat
please note that for the above definition
of the smallest photon energy
we took f as 1.0000!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Inertial
But 1 second (or 1 hz) is just an arbitrary human-defined value. There is
no way that photons depend on the human definition of a second.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------------
you must be joking!!
that is exactly why i multiplied it by
the scalar numbers of
6.6 exp-34 and 5.38 exp -44
it ios not as the arbitrary humes defintion of time
that stems out **not from** the a second
but from **experimental data of h **
and *Plack time unit* that is again comes out of that h
i used just the number not their dimensions
again
as long as you dont understand and admit
that photon energy emission is
TIME DEPENDED
you willunderstnd nothing about those 'bussiness '
may be you will (for a change ) accept that
the Plank sime
5.38 exp -44 second
(that is experimentally based and not just arbitrary definition that
was done without any specific connection to photon emission)
so
how about that this plank time ---
i s *your*real 'instantaneous emission of photon energy ??!!
and then we could have common base for discussion ??
(as i know your character
and *ego* that is much bigger than your rationality
you will not agree with me
you cant afford emotionally ,come what come may - to agree
with me ...)
btw
thank you for not diverting me to your' nG'
had i noticed that you did it--
i would not respond to you even a single word !!
Y.P
-------------------------------
2
and mind you
the time unit in SI
is the same as in MKS
Y.P
-------------------
Inertial
No.
> that is exactly why i multiplied it by
> the scalar numbers of
> 6.6 exp-34 and 5.38 exp -44
> it ios not as the arbitrary humes defintion of time
And THEY are arbitrary human values as well/
You are not just wrong,, you are wrong three times .. and then multiply your
wrongness.
> that stems out **not from** the a second
> but from **experimental data of h **
> and *Plack time unit* that is again comes out of that h
> i used just the number not their dimensions
And so you have an arbitrary number. h can have any value we want it to
have.
> again
> as long as you dont understand and admit
I do understand
> that photon energy emission is
> TIME DEPENDED
It isn't
> you will understnd nothing about those 'bussiness '
I do undersatnd.. you can't even do basic dimensional analysis
> may be you will (for a change ) accept that
> the Plank sime
> 5.38 exp -44 second
So what?
> (that is experimentally based and not just arbitrary definition that
> was done without any specific connection to photon emission)
Just like the enrgy of a photon is E = hf .. experimentally based and not
just arbitrary definition
> so
> how about that this plank time ---
> i s *your*real 'instantaneous emission of photon energy ??!!
Photons are created within planck time (the smallest quanta of time if there
is such a thing). That is what I have been telling *you*
> and then we could have common base for discussion ??
> (as i know your character
> and *ego* that is much bigger than your rationality
That's you. not me
> you will not agree with me
> you cant afford emotionally ,come what come may - to agree
> with me ...)
It has to do with truth, not ego.
> btw
> thank you for not diverting me to your' nG'
>
> had i noticed that you did it--
> i would not respond to you even a single word !!
If you post nothing but personal attacks (as is common for you), you get
diverted. If you post something that has some possible response in
physics,. you do not.
> Y.P
> -------------------------------
>
> 2
> and mind you
> the time unit in SI
> is the same as in MKS
Doesn't make any difference. You are getting arbitrary values, stripping
them of their units, multiplying them and claiming this has some
significance in nature. And you HAVE to strip them of units, because what
you are doing make no sense in dimensional analysis
Now.. explain again how you work out the lowest frequency .. with a
description of where you get all the value you are using and a justification
of why you use them as you have. No arm waving, and writing down arbitrary
multiplication with no justification.
Y.Porat
-----------------
sorry !!!
i told you th edifference between a mathematician and a physicist!!
as long as you dont unerstand and dont admit
that
photon energy emission is
TIME DEEPENDENT
we haveno common base to go on with it!!
BTW
i have a strong feeling that you already understood it!!
(i cant believe you are so dumb !!...)
but you cant admit it
from Ego considerations
please note that i have now about 1000 readers
of that thread
and no one now came in to refute my claim thjat
photon energy is time dependent
i even suggested that time
that stems outof exactly thast main hero
of photon energy
ie the palnk aonstant!!
the Planck time stems out of the
plank constant
i showed you and experimental fact that
photon emission is time dependent
and can be any time lower than one second!
while the electron number emission is proportional to the time of
photon activity
etc etc etc
if all that does not help
NOTHING WILL HELP!!
we dont stand on the same ground of honesty !!
anyway Thank you for your interest
fo r not diverting me and
actually you helped me (unwillingly ..)
by your opposition to develop better
my explanations and my arguments
you see
i am not so un thankful as you are!!
so Thank you for your indirect help
and
BYE
Y.Porat
------------------
Inertial
No .. you're not
> i told you th edifference between a mathematician and a physicist!!
You are neither
> as long as you dont unerstand and dont admit
> that
> photon energy emission is
> TIME DEEPENDENT
I understand .. I know that the energy is a photon is NOT time dependent.
That has been proben experimentally.
Your denial of experimental evidence puts you clearly in the camp of the
crackpots, and not the scientists
> we haveno common base to go on with it!!
> BTW
> i have a strong feeling that you already understood it!!
Of course I understand it. I've been explaining it to you over and over.
> (i cant believe you are so dumb !!...)
> but you cant admit it
> from Ego considerations
Your ego is the only problem here
> please note that i have now about 1000 readers
> of that thread
No .. I have 1000 readers .. what makes you think they are reading your
crap?
> and no one now came in to refute my claim thjat
> photon energy is time dependent
LIAR
I do .. and Igor .. and Robert .. and noone agrees with you, because YOU ARE
WRONG
> i even suggested that time
> that stems outof exactly thast main hero
> of photon energy
> ie the palnk aonstant!!
E = hf .. I've been telling you for post after post
> the Planck time stems out of the
> plank constant
Pretty much
> i showed you and experimental fact that
> photon emission is time dependent
You did no such thing
> and can be any time lower than one second!
Of course it can .. it is usulaly used up in a very tine fraction of a
second
> while the electron number emission is proportional to the time of
> photon activity
Yes .. more photons (each with E=hf energy) = more energy = more electrons.
> etc etc etc
> if all that does not help
> NOTHING WILL HELP!!
You are beyond help
> we dont stand on the same ground of honesty !!
True .. you are not honest. You lie almost all the time.
> anyway Thank you for your interest
> fo r not diverting me and
>
> actually you helped me (unwillingly ..)
> by your opposition to develop better
> my explanations and my arguments
You've not developed anything .. you take two arbitrary small numbers,
multiply them to get an even smaller number and claim that that has some
meaning in the real world. That isn't physics .. its just blind arithmetic.
> you see
> i am not so un thankful as you are!!
> so Thank you for your indirect help
> and
> BYE
Get a new hobby.
Y.Porat
-------------------
my following answer is not to the pigg
****anonymous*** Inertial
it is to the other readers
to understand with whome we are dealing !!
--------
the psychopath moron Josef Goebbels
EXPLAINED TO ME !!
(:-)
-------------
Enery is a photon ???
nazi PSYCHOPATH pig shit imbecile ????!!!
we deal with PHOTON ** ENERGY EMISSION!!**
it is not photon
it is photon ENERGY** EMISSION*
again --emission!!!
emission is an action
got it moron !!psychopath
GOT IT PSYCHOPATH
you Nazi pig mother brought you top this
world INSTANTANEOUSLY !!!
go fuck yourself with your boy friend !!
EMISSION.
AND EMISSION TAKE S TIME !!
nothing in our universe is done instantaneously!!
got it pig shit ??
to **do**- is to change
to change is to move something
to move something is by definition
TAKES TIME
even a pig could understand it !!
but not the ANONYMOUS INERTIAL
'ARTFUL' WHATEVER
that comes every half a year
with another name
you waist the money of your gangsters
Bosses
now go discus with your teacher
Josef Goebbels !!!
you are not even a pig
you are just the ***shit*** of a pig !!!
just fuck yourself away
and come back every month with a better
human behavior
BYE
Y.P
------------------------
Y.Porat
The Planck time
ie
5.38 exp-44 SECONDS !!
is not 'INSTANTANEOUS ' enough -----
FOR THAT NASTY PSYCHOPATH MORON PIG !!
and he is sending me to find another hobby !!
Y.Porat
--------------------
Inertial
Yes it is .. you replied to me
> it is to the other readers
> to understand with whome we are dealing !!
You are a bit of a psycho, but we've all worked that out
> --------
> the psychopath moron Josef Goebbels
> EXPLAINED TO ME !!
So you are in contact with your hero, Josef Goebells ?
> (:-)
> -------------
>
> Enery is a photon ???
Typo .. should have said "Energy IN a photon", that should have been clear
from the context and that I've been telling you this for dozens of posts now
> nazi PSYCHOPATH pig shit imbecile ????!!!
Tourette syndrom AND and senilty .. you are doubly afflicted.
> we deal with PHOTON ** ENERGY EMISSION!!**
Yes
> it is not photon
> it is photon ENERGY** EMISSION*
The energy of the photon .. yes. Which is E = hf
> again --emission!!!
Yes .. when the photon is destroyed (instantly) it releases energy which is
then used (eg to free an electron etc)
> emission is an action
> got it moron !!psychopath
> GOT IT PSYCHOPATH
> you Nazi pig mother brought you top this
> world INSTANTANEOUSLY !!!
> go fuck yourself with your boy friend !!
You really do have a bad case of tourette syndrome don't you
> EMISSION.
> AND EMISSION TAKE S TIME !!
It happens in an instant, because the photon is destroyed in an instant.
The energy release can be used over time to perform some 'action'
This is very very simple stuff. If you put as much energy into
understanding as you do into insults, you might get it
> nothing in our universe is done instantaneously!!
Photon creation and destruction is.
> got it pig shit ??
Tourettes again. So sad
> to **do**- is to change
> to change is to move something
No .. it doesn't have to move to change .. that is on one type of change
> to move something is by definition
> TAKES TIME
> even a pig could understand it !!
> but not the ANONYMOUS INERTIAL
> 'ARTFUL' WHATEVER
> that comes every half a year
> with another name
> you waist the money of your gangsters
> Bosses
And you suffer from paranoid delusions as well. You're just a wealth of
psychological disorders, aren't you.
> now go discus with your teacher
> Josef Goebbels !!!
> you are not even a pig
> you are just the ***shit*** of a pig !!!
> just fuck yourself away
> and come back every month with a better
> human behavior
Do you see the hypocrisy in what you just wrong? Probably not.
Inertial
If there is a smallest quantum of time (and Planck time is not necessarily
that) , then something that happens between one time quantum and the next is
instantaneous. As I proved several times before, photon creation must
happen in an instant .. because a single photon is indivisible and has no
components, it can never be only partly created or destroyed.. either it
exists or it doesn't.
> FOR THAT NASTY PSYCHOPATH MORON PIG !!
Tourettes again .. Do you need some medication?
> and he is sending me to find another hobby !!
Have you found one yet .. maybe kniting .. because you SUCK at physics.
Y.Porat
>
> Tourette syndrom AND and senilty .. you are doubly afflicted.
>
> > we deal with PHOTON ** ENERGY EMISSION!!**
>
> Yes
>
> > it is not photon
> > it is photon ENERGY** EMISSION*
>
> The energy of the photon .. yes. Which is E = hf
>
> > again --emission!!!
>
> Yes .. when the photon is destroyed (instantly) it releases energy which is
> then used (eg to free an electron etc)
>
> > emission is an action
> > got it moron !!psychopath
> > GOT IT PSYCHOPATH
> > you Nazi pig mother brought you top this
> > world INSTANTANEOUSLY !!!
> > go fuck yourself with your boy friend !!
>
> You really do have a bad case of tourette syndrome don't you
>
> > EMISSION.
> > AND EMISSION TAKE S TIME !!
>
-------------------------
his fucken mother brought that psycho animal
to this world 'instantaneously'
the psycho hread it from PD
and repeating that stupidity on and on
i am qite sure that even PD
will think *now*
after all the further discussions here that
5.38 exp -44 second (the Planck Time)
is instantaneous enough even to him !!.
----
a donkey i s cleaver than
that psycho anonymous inertial
indeed very INERTIAL (:-)
i suspect that even that imbecile anonymous understood it at last
that he *was* wrong about that instantaneous
but is piggy enough --not to admit it
the main thing for me is that most readers
agree with me
(if Inertial gets some poor rating it is due
to his taking a' tremp' on my back
2
it is recorded !!
and 1000 readers find it interesting and innovative !!
they appreciate theorethic analysis
thqtis folowed by anorriginal simplke experiment
folowed by numeric calculations
and unprecedented combination of
experimental data that no one ever did before !
(it is of course not for parrots nor for jealous crooks that innovated
nothing in their fucken lives except empty parrots hand
ravings )
next !!
we have still 'a little " something else
to go ahead !!!
Y.P
---------------------
Y.Porat
loet me try another explaantion for retarded/psychopaths/crook like
Inertial
it is clear to anyone that photon energy emission is done by an
enourmous numner of single photons
now the idiot suggsted that
E wil be h f n
while n is an interger !!
so ibroyght the experiment with the photoelctric cell that shoes
that
PHOOTN ENERGY EMISSION (DETECTED
BY HTE NUMBER OF EMITTED ELECTRONS
I S DON CLEARLY INLESS THAN ONE SECOND !!
solet us now examine waht is happening
in that time duration of just one second?
suppose a case in which the above cell
is emitting 10 electrons per second
WE CAN measure the CONSTANT current of electricity
by measuring its i =number of elctrons per second
we can see that i is constant nomatter how many elctrons of photons
were involved
*
**the main point is constant flow of energy***!!
(just an example for explanation
it can of course be any other number than 10 elecrons per second) it
can be 100 or a billion)
and we find that
in 0.1 second it will emit 1 electron
in 02 " it will " 2 "
in 0.4 " " " 4 "
in 0.8 " " 8 "
in 1.0 " " 10 "
so ??
can we say that electron energy AMOUNT that got its
energy from THE AMOUNT OF photon energy!!
CAN WE SAY THAT PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION
IS DIRECTLY LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL
TO
TIME LAPS
between 0 and 1.0 SECOND !!!??
(ie elapse time **smaller** than a second
and of course in more than a second !!)
i am sure that for any sane person with minimal intelligence (not
to speak about integrity )
the question is
a rhetoric question!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------
is
Inertial
All lies
> i am qite sure that even PD
> will think *now*
> after all the further discussions here that
> 5.38 exp -44 second (the Planck Time)
> is instantaneous enough even to him !!.
I have been saying that all along .. if time is qunatised, then instantly
MEANS within a single quantu, of time
> ----
> a donkey i s cleaver than
> that psycho anonymous inertial
> indeed very INERTIAL (:-)
More Tourettes from Porat
> i suspect that even that imbecile anonymous understood it at last
> that he *was* wrong about that instantaneous
I am not wrong
> but is piggy enough --not to admit it
> the main thing for me is that most readers
> agree with me
NOONE agrees with you
> (if Inertial gets some poor rating it is due
> to his taking a' tremp' on my back
Nonsense
> 2
> it is recorded !!
> and 1000 readers find it interesting and innovative !!
Nonsense .. stop your LIES
> they appreciate theorethic analysis
> thqtis folowed by anorriginal simplke experiment
> folowed by numeric calculations
> and unprecedented combination of
> experimental data that no one ever did before !
Nope .. they just laugh at you.
You are deluded, senile, paranoid, and have touretts as well .. you have
SOOOO many psychological problems .. you should donate your brain to science
.. it must be a real mess in there.
> (it is of course not for parrots nor for jealous crooks that innovated
> nothing in their fucken lives except empty parrots hand
> ravings )
>
> next !!
> we have still 'a little " something else
> to go ahead !!!
> Y.P
So .. you still can't explain the logic between multiplying two arbitrary
numbers, and using a frequency of 1 hz, and declaring it as smallest photon
energy.
Inertial
I'm none of those.
> it is clear to anyone that photon energy emission is done by an
> enourmous numner of single photons
That's what I've been trying to explain to you
> now the idiot suggsted that
> E wil be h f n
> while n is an interger !!
That is the total energy .. where N is the number of photons received over
some period of time
> so ibroyght
"ibroyght"?
> the experiment with the photoelctric cell that shoes
> that
> PHOOTN ENERGY EMISSION (DETECTED
> BY HTE NUMBER OF EMITTED ELECTRONS
> I S DON CLEARLY INLESS THAN ONE SECOND !!
Of course it is. And that is perfectly compatible with E = hfn for total
photon energy received. N is the number of photons received over some
period of time
> solet us now examine waht is happening
> in that time duration of just one second?
There is NOTHING special about 1 second
> suppose a case in which the above cell
> is emitting 10 electrons per second
Fine
> WE CAN measure the CONSTANT current of electricity
> by measuring its i =number of elctrons per second
> we can see that i is constant nomatter how many elctrons of photons
> were involved
Just like we can measure f as the frequency of EMR doesn't change.
> *
> **the main point is constant flow of energy***!!
Fine
> (just an example for explanation
> it can of course be any other number than 10 elecrons per second) it
> can be 100 or a billion)
>
> and we find that
>
> in 0.1 second it will emit 1 electron
>
> in 02 " it will " 2 "
>
> in 0.4 " " " 4 "
>
> in 0.8 " " 8 "
>
> in 1.0 " " 10 "
Derr .. of course.
> so ??
> can we say that electron energy AMOUNT that got its
> energy from THE AMOUNT OF photon energy!!
Yes .. the total amount of electron energy if related to the total amount of
photons which arrived.
> CAN WE SAY THAT PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION
> IS DIRECTLY LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL
> TO
> TIME LAPS
> between 0 and 1.0 SECOND !!!??
Seeing the number of photons arriving is proportional to the time .. and
seeing the individual photon energy (E = hf) does NOT depend on time, yes we
can
> (ie elapse time **smaller** than a second
> and of course in more than a second !!)
There is NOTHING special about 1 second
> i am sure that for any sane person with minimal intelligence
Well .. you DO have minimal intelligence .. but you are FAR from sane
> (not
> to speak about integrity )
> the question is
> a rhetoric question!!
Yet you feel the need to ask it. Especially when it is what I have been
telling you from the beginning.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
------------------
1 thank you for understanding at last that
photon ENEERGY EMISSION
AGAIN
PHOTON ENERGY ***EMISSION**
IS TIME DEPENDENT
AGAIN
TIME DEPENDENT !!!
and it is right
even for shorter times than 1 second
even at
THE PLANK TIME 5.38 exp-44 second
again 5.38 exp-44 second
(second is thesame for the Si sytem
and for the mKS system !!!)
so at last after more than one month we got to
common understanding
but my definition (unprecedented )is
th eminimal time for single photon emission
is at the Plank time
while Inertial s minimal time definition for
a single photon was ....????? (:-)
it is all recorded
and you rely your cheating on the short memory of the other
readers or their laziness
to read what you said even in this very thread
if you like anyone can see it i the first posts
just above !!!
you said that the definition of a singl ephoton
is
E hf (f is number of wave lenths per what ??
and just above you agreed that my experiment
showes that single photons are emitting their
energy
in LESS THAN A SECOND
SO
waht are those photon emissins inless than a second??
is it 0.5 sing;le photons??
or may be 0.2 single photons???
while
non of them no matter how mant of them are doing it
NON OF THEM LASTED A SINGLE SECOND
ALL OF THEM EMITTED THIER ENERGY IN
LESS THAN A SECOND
again
no matetr how many of them did it
NO ONE OF THEM WAS EMITTINGITYS ENERGY ALONG ONE SECOND
YET
THE WHOLE PROCESS OF
EMITTING ALL THEIR ENERGY ALL OF THEM
TOOK LESS THAN A SECOND
MOREOVER
THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY EMITETD BY ALL OF THEM
WAS PROPORTIONAL TO THE
*TIME THEY WERE ACTIVE*!!
in 0.2 seconds-
they emitted half the energy than is 0.4 seconds!!!
so bottom line
is the ***amount* (ie quantity )
of photon energy emission
TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ???!!!
(even in less than a second )
can we get at last to common understanding ??
and only late will come my understanding about
the
REAL SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY
emitted along the Planck time !!!
(and not along one second !!!)
Y.Porat
-------------------
LASTED LESS THJAN A SECOND !!!
but you ddint nio
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------------
you ddint say 5.38 exp-44 seconds
i said it !!
YOU SAID INSTANTANEOUSLY !!!ie
instantaneously created and disappear
and your single photon definition was
E = hf
later under my analysis and explanatuions
yo added that stupid
E = n h f
while n is INTEGERS !!
you stressed it that n is integers !!
A IT IS RECORDED JUST ABOVE
EVEBN IN THIS THREAD !!
you are a poor shameless miserable
pathetic master and proven lier !!!
AND EVEN NOT A SUCCESSFUL THIEF !!
even not a good leech gangster
That innovated anything in his poor life
and that is why you try to steal credit from others !!
as a nasty parasite !!
**you cant cheat every body for ever !!**
because not all of them are fools
and not all of them are little Josef Goebbels !!...
Y.Porat
--------------------------
---------------------
Y.Porat
> 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
>
> 2
> here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
>
> you need for it
>
> a
> only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells
> (actually it can be other devices that are activated
> by photon electric cells )
>
> b
> a Led torch
> c
> the experiment must be in a background light
> that **does not* activate the above Cells !!..
> iow light wave that is long enough
> the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit )
>
> so
> 1
> light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells
> (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!!
>
> (half or 1/4 second etc )
>
> 2
> follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you calculator
> the zero start figures are a ctivated and then
> *disappear*
> 3
> what do you get there ??
>
> some hints:
> you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the
> calculator activation ('life time' )--
>
> is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION*
> OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!**
> (in our case less than a second
> but more then zero time !!!
>
> Q E D !!
>
> historic copyright !
>
> Yehiel Porat
> Mars 2010
> TIA
> ------------------
and only now after all this long tedious
thred
i can bring my
bottom line 'side product ' (:-)
the sensational pick antic
side product innovation
punch line :
since we found in this thread that the
smallest photon energy is :
3.55 exp-77 Joules
inorder to find the
SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!!
th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by c^2
9 exp16!!
and we get
3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16
and we get the
smallest PHOTON MASS :
=====================
Smallest photon **mass**
3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !!
=====================
and mind you
there is jsut one kind of mass
no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one
there is the MKS system
not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM
just the MKS
and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !!
-------------------------------
indeed fantastically small mass
and only now you can start to understand why
people said that the photon mass is
practically zero!!
but now i say
practically is not necessarily theoretically !!
the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important
**and you will understand now that it has even a use even in
money saving uses !!
from now on( i think)
there is no use anymore to look for
'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!!
because there is nothing like that
old Catto said :
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
so
to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive
TIME !!!
for further advance .
copyright Yehiel Porat
March 2010
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
Inertial
Total energy from photons is .. I've been telling you that from the first
replies to you 'copyright question' thread ages ago.
The energy of a SINGLE photon is NOT time dependent. It is E = hf, which
does not depend on any duration
> and it is right
> even for shorter times than 1 second
Of course it is, that's what I've been telling you
> even at
> THE PLANK TIME 5.38 exp-44 second
*> again 5.38 exp-44 second
Why do you repeat yourself repeat yourself
> (second is thesame for the Si sytem
> and for the mKS system !!!)
Doesn't matter .. its arbitrary
> so at last after more than one month we got to
> common understanding
I don't think you really do understand
> but my definition (unprecedented )
Nonsense
> is
> th eminimal time for single photon emission
> is at the Plank time
Which is what I said .. it happens within the shortest quantum of time (if
time is quantised)
> while Inertial s minimal time definition for
> a single photon was ....????? (:-)
Within an instant
> it is all recorded
Indeed it is
> and you rely your cheating on the short memory of the other
> readers or their laziness
I NEVER lie nor cheat. You on the other hand have done so on multiple
occasions.
> to read what you said even in this very thread
> if you like anyone can see it i the first posts
> just above !!!
> you said that the definition of a singl ephoton
> is
> E hf
That is the erengy in a single photon of EMG of frequency f
> (f is number of wave lenths per what ??
Depends on you units of measurement, as does the value of h and the value of
E. Frequency is not duration dependent
> and just above you agreed that my experiment
> showes that single photons are emitting their
> energy
> in LESS THAN A SECOND
Of course they do .. as I said, photons are created and destroyed in an
instant. The energy release is usually used in a very short period of time
after that.
> SO
> waht are those photon emissins inless than a second??
They are lots and lots of individual photons in a stream
> is it 0.5 sing;le photons??
Don't be stupid
> or may be 0.2 single photons???
You really are a fool
It is many single photons, each created in an instant and destroyed in an
instant and active for the time they take to go from the source to the
detector
> while
> non of them no matter how mant of them are doing it
> NON OF THEM LASTED A SINGLE SECOND
Noone (other than you) claim that they do .. that is your nonsense idea
> ALL OF THEM EMITTED THIER ENERGY IN
> LESS THAN A SECOND
Far less
> again
> no matetr how many of them did it
> NO ONE OF THEM WAS EMITTINGITYS ENERGY ALONG ONE SECOND
Noone (other than you) claim that they do .. that is your nonsense idea
> YET
> THE WHOLE PROCESS OF
> EMITTING ALL THEIR ENERGY ALL OF THEM
> TOOK LESS THAN A SECOND
Each one took FAR less than a second
> MOREOVER
> THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY EMITETD BY ALL OF THEM
> WAS PROPORTIONAL TO THE
> *TIME THEY WERE ACTIVE*!!
The energy of ALL of them is proportional to the time. The energy for EACH
of them is NOT. It is E = hf
> in 0.2 seconds-
> they emitted half the energy than is 0.4 seconds!!!
Because there are half as many photons arriving in half the time
> so bottom line
> is the ***amount* (ie quantity )
> of photon energy emission
> TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ???!!!
As I have been telling you for weeks (or is it months) .. the TOTAL energy
of photon is dependent on the number of photons .. and THAT is dependent on
the rate the photons arrive and for how long they are arriving. This is
INCREDIBLE simple and basic .. yet it has taken you this long to even start
to get it (if you really do).
> (even in less than a second )
> can we get at last to common understanding ??
I don't know .. if you are willing to learn and think, perhaps
> and only late will come my understanding about
> the
> REAL SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY
> emitted along the Planck time !!!
Which is E = hf .. as I've been tellign you
> (and not along one second !!!)
Noone (other than you) claim that they do .. that is your nonsense idea
Inertial
I said within the smallest quantum of time .. that is what instantly means.
That one instant it does not exist, the next it does. there is NO time when
it does not exist.
> YOU SAID INSTANTANEOUSLY !!!ie
> instantaneously created and disappear
> and your single photon definition was
> E = hf
Yes it is. Which is not time duration dependent
> later under my analysis and explanatuions
> yo added that stupid
> E = n h f
For multiple photons
> while n is INTEGERS !!
Of course, multiple whole photons
> you stressed it that n is integers !!
Of course, multiple whole photons
> A IT IS RECORDED JUST ABOVE
> EVEBN IN THIS THREAD !!
> you are a poor shameless miserable
> pathetic master and proven lier !!!
I never lie. You have no evidence that I do, because I don't. YOU lie .. I
have pointed them out multiple times.
> AND EVEN NOT A SUCCESSFUL THIEF !!
I don't steal
> even not a good leech gangster
I am not a gangster
> That innovated anything in his poor life
> and that is why you try to steal credit from others !!
I never steal credit
> as a nasty parasite !!
That is you, not me
> **you cant cheat every body for ever !!**
But you keep trying
> because not all of them are fools
Only you (and a few other morons, like Henry and Ken Seto and Androcles)
> and not all of them are little Josef Goebbels !!...
No .. that is you .. he's your hero. You're always talking about him
So .. you still can't explain the logic between multiplying two arbitrary
numbers, and using a frequency of 1 hz, and declaring it as smallest photon
energy. Can you?
Inertial
Gawd .. here we go again
> the sensational pick antic
> side product innovation
> punch line :
Eh?
> since we found in this thread that the
> smallest photon energy is :
>
> 3.55 exp-77 Joules
> inorder to find the
No . we didn't.. you just multiplied arbitrary numbers together and made a
totally unsubstantiaed claim that it is minimum photon energy. Actual
experiment show that photon energy is frame dependent and is E = hf
> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!!
Photon mass is zero. It does have a relativistic mass if you divide the
energy by c^2, as E = Mc^2 (where M is relativistic mass) is the total
energy of a system
> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by c^2
> 9 exp16!!
> and we get
>
> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16
> and we get the
> smallest PHOTON MASS :
Complete nonsense
> =====================
> Smallest photon **mass**
> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !!
> =====================
Complete nonsense
> and mind you
> there is jsut one kind of mass
> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one
But, if your energy figure is correct .. dividing by c^2 gives you
relativistic mass.
> there is the MKS system
>
> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM
Yes .. rest mass and relativistic mass both have dimensions of M. Noone is
saying (or has said) that there is more than one mass dimension.
> just the MKS
> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !!
> -------------------------------
> indeed fantastically small mass
> and only now you can start to understand why
> people said that the photon mass is
> practically zero!!
it *is* zero
> but now i say
> practically is not necessarily theoretically !!
Yes .. necessarily theorectically.
> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important
You don't have any
> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in
> money saving uses !!
Bullshit
> from now on( i think)
> there is no use anymore to look for
> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!!
Except that they exist
> because there is nothing like that
Wrong
> old Catto said :
> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
> so
Nonsense
> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive
> TIME !!!
> for further advance .
>
> copyright Yehiel Porat
> March 2010
Again, Porat copyrights complete bullshit
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------------
(:-)
---------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> > 2
> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
>
> > you need for it
>
> > a
> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells
> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated
> > by photon electric cells )
>
> > b
> > a Led torch
> > c
> > the experiment must be in a background light
> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!..
> > iow light wave that is long enough
> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit )
>
> > so
> > 1
> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells
> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!!
>
Paul Draper was defeated
and refuses to admit it !!!
i was asking him two simple questions
1
is the Planck Time definition as
3.44 exp-44 SECONDS....
(it is defined by seconds)
is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ???
2
who was the first one to shggest
the Planck time
as
THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR
THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY
TO BE EMITTED ??
***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....)
BTW
can anyone reveal
who is the nasty pig anonymous
that is less than one year on this ng !!!.
and is calling himself Inertial =artful
..... (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
now i just wonder where has Inertial disappeared ?? (:-)
Y.P
--------------------------
Jerry
Whatever makes you think that you are worth more than an
occasional source of idle amusement?
You should realize that you do not -really- provide any
intellectual challenge, and that sparring with you can just
get boring.
Jerry
Y.Porat
------------------
ok another genius scientist around the table .....(:-)
so
MAY BE YOU ANSWER MY TWO ABOVE
(difficult (:-) QUESTIONS ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Inertial
> On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Here is mybetterdefinition 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
Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf
You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense
>> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range
>>
>> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000
Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1
>> > 2
>> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it
There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0
Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT
prove your
nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence.
>> > (in our case less than a second
>> > but more then zero time !!!
Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT
prove your
nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence.
>> > Q E D !!
There is no QED there
>> > historic copyright !
Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense?
>> > Yehiel Porat
>> > Mars 2010
>> > TIA
>> > ------------------
>>
>> and only now after all this long tedious
>> thred
>> i can bring my
>> bottom line 'side product ' (:-)
There is none
>> the sensational pick antic
>> side product innovation
>> punch line :
>>
>> since we found in this thread that the
>> smallest photon energy is :
>>
>> 3.55 exp-77 Joules
>> inorder to find the
No .. you found nothing of the sort
>> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!!
>> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by c^2
>> 9 exp16!!
>> and we get
>>
>> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16
>> and we get the
>> smallest PHOTON MASS :
Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest photon mass
(because photon mass is zero)
>> =====================
>> Smallest photon **mass**
>> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !!
>> =====================
Nonsense .. even with === around it
>> and mind you
>> there is jsut one kind of mass
>> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one
Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length.
That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a relativistic
mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a measurement of
different things.
Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both lengths
>> there is the MKS system
>>
>> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM
>> just the MKS
>> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !!
noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is
disputing as though they are.
>> -------------------------------
>> indeed fantastically small mass
>> and only now you can start to understand why
>> people said that the photon mass is
>> practically zero!!
>> but now i say
>> practically is not necessarily theoretically !!
Yes .. theoretically
>> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important
You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary numbers and
multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. That is
just nonsense.
>> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in
>> money saving uses !!
>> from now on( i think)
>> there is no use anymore to look for
>> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!!
>> because there is nothing like that
>>
>> old Catto said :
>> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
>> so
>>
>> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive
>> TIME !!!
>> for further advance .
>>
>> copyright Yehiel Porat
>> March 2010
More nonsense copyrighted
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> ---------------------------------------
>
> Paul Draper was defeated
> and refuses to admit it !!!
Never happened.
> i was asking him two simple questions
> 1
> is the Planck Time definition as
> 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS....
No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44
seconds.
Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is dependent
on the units of measure.
> (it is defined by seconds)
No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or any
other unit)
> is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ???
That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. What do
you mean by a time dependent time duration?
> 2
> who was the first one to shggest
> the Planck time
> as
> THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR
> THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY
> TO BE EMITTED ??
Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the smallest
quanta of
time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense.
But I'm sure others have said that before you.
> ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....)
He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. That
doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies "I
don't know, you have defeated me"
>
>
> BTW
> can anyone reveal
> who is the nasty pig anonymous
> that is less than one year on this ng !!!.
> and is calling himself Inertial =artful
You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using a
different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that was
obvious.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-----------------------
are you by any chance PD ??? (:-)
----------------------
Inertial
Are you? Silly me .. I forgot .. you are Joseph Goebbels.
Y.Porat
----------------
(:-)
i like your humor sense
anyway
here is my question again
and lets see if inertial can ansewr a simple question just by
yes
or no :
is the Plank time ie
5.38 exp -44 seconds
again
5.38 exp-44 SECONDS..
is it time dependent or not ??
just 'yes' or 'no'
please no stories from the beginning of Universe
to its end !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Inertial
Yes (approximately)
> again
>
> 5.38 exp-44 SECONDS..
Still yes. Planck time hasn't change since you last asked me. Its value
does not change over time (so in that sense it is not time dependent :):))
> is it time dependent or not ??
What does "is a time duration time dependent" even mean?
Is the numerical value of it dependent on the units of measure you use. Yes
.. of course .. like everything we measure, the numerical value is unit
dependent.
> just 'yes' or 'no'
Can't .. that would be dishonest. We first have to work out what the hell
you are actually asking. 'Is Planck time time dependent' .. what sort of a
stupid question is that? If you can explain exactly what you mean by that,
then I will answer it,
> please no stories from the beginning of Universe
> to its end !!
Once upon a time, long long ago, Porat was born ....
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------
>
Y.Porat
ok fine at last!!
you said YES
and thank you for that
(actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...)
no need for more much mumbligs
from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it
though
it might be connected to the beginning of universe since
listen carefully
NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME
IN PHYSICS
**AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon
emission of energy !!
AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!!
now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!!
i will tell you why
because it s implications are FAR GOING
AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU
and your claims --
(about one whole second ) just at the top of this thread
that any one can see above !!
and you cant cheat about those
RECORDED (just above ) facts
--------------------
anyway
let u s go to my second question
DID ANYONE BEFORE ME
SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME
AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST
PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ??
how about
yes ??
or no ??
or i don t know ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Inertial
Its the same answer I've given for the last few post. Apparently you have
troubles reading and understanding answer of more than one word.
> (actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...)
>
> no need for more much mumbligs
> from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it
> though
> it might be connected to the beginning of universe since
> listen carefully
> NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME
> IN PHYSICS
> **AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon
> emission of energy !!
> AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!!
LIAR (again).
I have NEVER claimed it takes a second. No-one in physics claims that. The
ONLY person to make the claim that photon emission takes place in a second
was you. You say stupid things, then say that others claim them and then
argue against them. That is dishonest and cheating.
> now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!!
You'd have to ask him . Personally, I just don't think he is bothered
replying to such stupid questions, and dose not want to deal with your
dishonesty.
> i will tell you why
> because it s implications are FAR GOING
> AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU
> and your claims --
Nonsense
> (about one whole second )
I have made no claims about one second being in any way special. The only
one who has done so was you.
> just at the top of this thread
> that any one can see above !!
> and you cant cheat about those
> RECORDED (just above ) facts
> --------------------
I am not the cheat. You are. So where is it you think me saying photon
emission is a second? Show it.
> anyway
> let u s go to my second question
And hope noone notices your dishonesty.
> DID ANYONE BEFORE ME
> SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME
> AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST
> PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ??
Yes .. me. I answered that already a couple of times. Again, you cannot
seem to understand anything beyond single word answers.
How long the energy (E = hf) in the energy packet that is a photon to be
used depends on what processes start with that energy (eg releasing an
electron and causing a current to flow in your trivial LED torch and
calculator example)
However, the creation of a photon (ie a packet of energy E = hf), and
destruction of a photon, MUST take place within the smallest quanta of time
(if time is quantised .. otherwise in zero time). There can be no time when
it only partly exists.
I've told you this many times in recent threads. That is probably where you
cheated and now dishonestly claim it was your idea.
Y.Porat
at the last posts ((:-) (:-)
but how about the beginning of this thread??
do you think you can cheat the whole world ??!!
anyone can and invited to see what you climed at the beginning of this
thread !!!
----------------------
>
> > (actually you had no choice- as a sane sober person ...)
>
> > no need for more much mumbligs
> > from the beginning of the universe untilll the end if it
> > though
> > it might be connected to the beginning of universe since
> > listen carefully
> > NO ONE CAN IMAGINE OR TALK SENSIBLY ABOUT A SHORTER TIME
> > IN PHYSICS
> > **AND THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THAT TIME** for smallest photon
> > emission of energy !!
> > AND NOT YOUR SILLY SECOND!!
>
> LIAR (again).
Hi Josef (:-)
----------------
>
> I have NEVER claimed it takes a second. No-one in physics claims that
idot crook
i we were dealing withthe smallest SINGLE PHOTON
AGAIN
***SMALLEST*** SINGLE **SINGLE *** SINGLE !!!
PHOTON
NOT MANY OF THEM
GOT IT CROCKY ??
--------------
. The
> ONLY person to make the claim that photon emission takes place in a second
> was you.
------------
just how far can a Nazi pigg
Josef Goebbels go ??? (:-)
-----------------------------
>
> > now *why* PD could not answer that simple question??!!
>
> You'd have to ask him . Personally, I just don't think he is bothered
> replying to such stupid questions, and dose not want to deal with your
> dishonesty.
(;-)
you think that all people here are idiot with
nomemory
--------------------
>
> > i will tell you why
> > because it s implications are FAR GOING
> > AND REFUTING HIM AND YOU
> > and your claims --
>
> Nonsense
>
> > (about one whole second )
>
> I have made no claims about one second being in any way special. The only
> one who has done so was you.
>
> > just at the top of this thread
> > that any one can see above !!
> > and you cant cheat about those
> > RECORDED (just above ) facts
> > --------------------
>
> I am not the cheat. You are. So where is it you think me saying photon
> emission is a second? Show it.
-------------
just at the frst posts
yoiu suggested (and even that was under my guidence
fort you claimed that
a single photon is
hf
anyone cansee it that you are a psychopath lier !!
----------
only later you intruduced
h f n
and strressed that n IS INTEGERS
(for that single photon!
not all readers here are idiots they can se it jsut above !!
-----------
>
> > anyway
> > let u s go to my second question
>
> And hope noone notices your dishonesty.
>
> > DID ANYONE BEFORE ME
> > SUGGESTED THAT PLANK TIME
> > AS THE DURATION OF THE SMALLEST
> > PHOTON ENERGY EMISSION ??
>
> Yes .. me.
(:-)
PSYCHOPATH !!! shameless imbecile crook
---------------------
here goes little Josef Goebbels
after all your
E photon = n h f with n as integers
is it you that suggested it ??!!
and were is the **Planck constant**
WITH THE FIGURES
5.38 exp-44
who was the first one EVEN in this thraed that did it !!!
just bring a quote even from this thread !!!
and tell us the number of post
in which you did it before me
actually
you started to mention the plank time
ONLY AFTER ME
right shameless Nazi pig psychopath !!
anyone that will follow this thread will see it
does littel Josef count on it that
no reader here with bother to follow it??
but that exactly was Josef Goebbels tricks !!!
(anyway
you say the it was you the colyrighter
and you said all along that
photon energy emission is
NOT TIME DEPENDENT
so what has that plank time got to do with you ??
you AND PD said all along the beginning ---
'instantaneous''*** and not time dependent**
you stressed all along 'not time dependent '!!
so why at last you started to talk about
my Planck time ??
and now you admitted that plank time
***IS** TIME DEPENDENT !!
2
you even cheated about bringing l'inks' about
preceding me with that
photon energy emission as Plank time dependent
and there was nothing like that
***in all your links !!** !!!
got it little Josef Goebbels ??
EVERY ONE CAN SEE IT JUST ABOVE !!
if needed i will quote the exact post !!above
BYE Josef
Y.P
-----------------
-
OF YOURS that i asked about ???
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0af51a5f-012b-4614...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
=============================================
Whatever makes a lying pile of worthless shit like you think that you
are worth more than an occasional source of idle amusement?
You can whine and deny all to want to, fuckheaded bigot, but it's Einstein
and Tom&Jeery you are denying.
For v = 0.999c,
2.2usec * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.098362 usec
So cosmic muons which normally decay in 2.2 usec therefore map to "a
narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame" and only last for
a maximum of 0.01 usec.
.nees YLENITUOR era stceffe esehT
Read that backwards and sigh, dumbfuck.
I would estimate that more than likely you are a deranged insane old
faggot called "Tom the Minor Crank", pretending he could be the
pretty radiologist "Geraldine" he met in hospital when he went for an
X-ray, living out his fantasies on usenet and believing anyone can be
fooled by it.
REPEAT:
2.2 usec in the stationary frame, tau = 2.2 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the moving
frame. Einstein's equation - not a thing you can do about it, I can squeeze
your balls and you can only squeal. And I'm not letting go until you cry
"uncle" or fuck off out of here, you bastard. I'm teaching physics to guys
like Gehan and tords like you are in the way. Fucking weep, arsehole.
It is NOT possible that I have made a mistake, you FUCKING LYING
INCOMPETENT STOOOOOOOPID INSANE MORONIC ARROGANT
COWARDLY FRAUDULENT BIGOT, AS ALWAYS!
eric gisse
[snip all, unread]
WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! WAAAHHHHHH! WAAAAAH!
Y.Porat
--------------------
Hi Eric
where have you been allthat time?
is i t possible that you are Inertial ?? (:-)
now all of us have a problem:
since Inertial was making a great innovation
that deserves a prize
suppose that the prize committee
is looking for that ANONYMOUS
inertial = Artful
(or may be even PD ??)
or may be even Eric Gisse ??
so the comity is looking about were to find that young genius
BUT WERE SHOULD THEY FIND HIM??
AND WAHT IS **HIS **REAL NAME
WHAT IS HIS REAL ADDRESS
for sending him the prize ??
so let us announce a Prize
for anyone that will reveal the real name
and identity and address of that genius
of the honorable 'Inertial '
how about a
100000 $ for doing it ???
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
ben6993
Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time?
I wrote the following (see below) to you, Porat, about a month ago.
It is certainly not original as I was just thinking through and
writing out what Artful / Inertial had been pointing out. I am sure
it is very elementary for him.
As well as thinking of instantaneous as not necessarily being smaller
than Planck time you can also say that a point particle is not
necessarily smaller than the Planck length.
Regards
Ben
On Feb 26, 11:48 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > instantaneous done
> > todo isto cahnge
> > and you cant change by definition in zero time!!
>
> I feel sure that Zeno's paradox's are at the heart of your arguement.
> And by definition any Paradox is paradoxical and therefore difficult
> to understand or to explain.
>
> Zero is inversely related to infinity.
> You can't actually reach infinity by counting 1, 2, 3, etc etc etc.
> though your number continues to get bigger
> You also can't reach zero through counting 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 etc etc etc .
> Though you can approach closer and closer to zero.
>
> There are different categories of infinity and likewise there ought to
> be different classes of zero. I can understand having, say, no apples
> in my larder, but that zero is not the same as what we are talking
> about here.
>
> When you are being told something is instantaneously, you are very
> rightly concerned that you want to be able to take a time interval
> rather than a mathematical point of zero time.
>
> You can define zero as a mathematical point on the time line, but you
> cannot take two points on the time axis and bring them together until
> their interval is zero.
>
> A problem is that if you require something to happen in a time
> interval rather than at an instant, then what is the minimum time
> interval that you are content for something to occur or be created in?
>
> Say you take your interval as between the points of time at 1/3 second
> and 1/2 second. Ie a time interval of 1/2-1/3 = 1/6th of a second.
> Is that enough time for you to be content for something to be created
> in?
>
> The trouble is that there is no smallest time interval.
>
> If you give me any two fractions 1/m and 1/n, I can always give you a
> smaller interval within the interval you specify.
> Eg between 1/3 and 1/2 there is another smaller time interval between
> time points (say) 9/24 and 10/24.
>
> This can go on indefinitely, in mathematics at least, until the
> intervals get much much smaller than about 5 times 10**(-44) sec, i.e.
> smaller than Planck time.
>
> For photon emission, the question of how long this event takes is not
> up for any person to state a time interval, but the photon has to be
> up and running immediately after creation to have a constant speed c.
>
> In a mathematical calculation, we would not be able to create the
> photon as we are still counting down to smaller and smaller time
> intervals and never being able to stop. (Though maybe this can be
> contradicted by mathematicians, as the infinite is very puzzling.)
>
> Physics has called a halt, to this counting down, at the Planck time
> of 5 times 10**(-44) sec.
>
> I think of instantaneous only as meaning it occured in an interval of
> time less that 5 times 10**(-44) sec. That is very tiny, I admit. But
> it is not the zero that you seem to be concerned about as being
> implied by instantaneous.
>
> As well as "instantaneous" not being a zero interval of time, Planck
> time is, I think, related to the total energy of the universe.
>
> If our universe had a trillion times more energy, the new Planck time
> would, I think, be a trillion times smaller. So in that sense the
> Plank time and the meaning of "instantaneous" is dependent on the
> total amount of energy which happened to go into the formation of the
> universe. (Assuming that Planck's constant did not change.)
>
> If the universe only had the average energy of a visible light photon,
> the Planck time for it would be relatively long. I am sure a physicist
> could calculate it.
>
> In any universe made out of a finite amount of energy, there would be
> a Planck time of some value or other and you would not be happy about
> Plank time implying a zero time interval. But I would be happy that
> "instantaneous" did not literally mean zero.
>
> I would only be worrying with you if the universe were of infinite
> energy where, consequently, Planck time would imply a zero time
> inteval. But I cannot contemplate any universe being of infinite
> energy.
Y.Porat
> On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !!
> > --------------------
>
> >
> > -----------------------
>
> Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time?
not exactly!
plank is no doubt a grat hero
but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy
his formula was
E=hf
full stiop)!!!
but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!!
as far as i know
th ePlank time derivation
was not done by Plank
it was done later !!!
2
plank ddint wrote his formula as
E min photon = h times Plank time
that is good as i showed with my experiment
for a huge number of single photons
not for a single photon
his formula was again
E = hf
and f is one second defined !!
the suggested probebly for the first time
unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my
is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!!
2
even you all along the discussions withyou
spoke about 'instantaneous *
and you explicitly insisted that
'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!'
you repeated it again and again
and that is as well recorded !!
you can t now after all my fights here
come a twist your
instantaneous and not time dependent
to be instantaneous= as Plank time
instantaneous andnot time dependent is ....
ZERO TIME !!!
ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE
in zero time
and no one (aFair) around me including you !
said **then** that he agrees with me !!
that noting can be done in zero time !!
i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision
is not done instantaneously !!!
and i dont remember you agreeing with me !!
it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks
here !!
so
sorry not much credit can be given even to you
the only credit that i can give you is
that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your
not being sure about the arguments in those threads
iow
you was doubtful about anything
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
Childish schoolyard taunts.
You want my attention, and if you don't get it, you're going to say
you won an argument, in a cheap, childish attempt to get my attention.
This is highly unattractive behavior for an old man that should know
better and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Get a grip. And while you're doing that, shut the hell up.
John Christiansen
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4ba899ec$0$8828$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Just for clarification MKS stands for Meter Kilogram Second, M is NOT for
mass
ben6993
> On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
I need no credit. The formula is all yours. That goes for any
supposed improvement on E-hf that you care to claim.
I cannot understand your logic and so I have never agreed with you,
but the discussions have been interesting to me, despite some mind
bending illogicality. The illogicality has made me think things
through more than I might otherwise have done. As in: "Amazing! How
can anyone not understand that arguement". But I have always tried to
understand how you see things from your point of view.
I thought that at last you were beginning to accept that the words
'instantaneous' [and, consequently, 'point'] do not necessarily imply
zero size. I also thought that, as you now seem to be accepting that
emission takes place from one instant to the next ....that your next
logical step was going to be to accept the original formula E=hf. ....
but, clearly, not yet.
Juan R.
> On Mar 23, 3:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>> [snip all, unread]
>>
>> WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! WAAAHHHHHH! WAAAAAH!
>
> --------------------
> Hi Eric
> where have you been allthat time?
> is i t possible that you are Inertial ?? (:-)
Sometimes one is inside the other, but Eric and Inertial are
not the same person.
Y.Porat
idiot crook
speak physics arguments :!!
you said all along that photon emission is done instantaneous
you introduced that inatantaneous
ie
you understand nothing about basic physics
nothing is done instantaneous
later you said
as a result of your idiotic instantaneous
that photon energy emission is not time dependent !!
while any chield would understand
that
energy emission in one second is less than in 2 seconds
and later i introduced my simple experiment that
shows that photons energy is emitted in much less than a second
it means as well that the real single photon was not found until
then
and you caimed all laong that the
single photon energy is
E = hf
i dont blame you that was the common parroting
along 100 years !!
you just parroted it
but since i started my arguments
and experiments you should start to change som thing in your mind
but you ddint do it
i showed t at phton energy is done
IN LESS THAN ONCE SECOND !!
so
E = hf was refuted as a *single photon* energy emission
and still you ddint get it
and you still ddint get even now that
for the first time a QM paradigm is refuted!!
because
the real single photon
WAS NEVER DEFINED PROPERLY !!
SO THERE WAS NEVER BASE
TO TALK ABOUT
' A SINGLE PHOTON INTERFERING WITH ITSELF!!
the real single photon is so small that no one can
neither detect it
nor handle it nor manipulate it
it is in order of magnitude of exp-77 joules
it is a very important development in physics
and you talk about childish behavior !!
just because your childish Ego
defending your 'status ' 'come what come may !!
you are an irresponsible scientist !!!
Y.P
-----------------------