curved spacetime
fdslkfjd
are required to curve spacetime around an object.
Sam Wormley
> Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
> are required to curve spacetime around an object.
Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
glird
> Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
> are required to curve spacetime around an object.
Neither radiaion nor waves nor potential are required.
"Space-time" is just a map of the structure of the material filling a
local
space (x,y,z) and of the rate of events (t) transpiring in it,
The "curvature" is a result of the act that a gravitational field is
a density gradient; wherefore anything moving through it wil be
refracted accordingly; thus its path will be curved.
Note: The "curvature" of space-time isn't a description of the
amount by which the paths of locally moving things will curve; it is a
map of the local density gradients that CAUSE those paths to curve.
glird
bert
Sam Those that hate Einstein and SR and GR having low wit and trying
to up their ego will hate that site. I have posted ny concave &
convex cruve space theory and they hate me. It show people are afrain
when ideas are new. Out of the box thinking seems to take time.
TreBert
BURT
Mass energy density determines gravity strength with a round geometry.
Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Al
>
> Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
> are required to curve spacetime around an object.
mass.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
BURT
> fdslkfjd wrote:
>
> > Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
> > are required to curve spacetime around an object.
>
> mass.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Time slows by gamma. Time flow occupies round curved space geometry
containing point energy and its matterial fields.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
------------------
parrot!!
nothing is curving space
th
e same as nothing can curve a ghost !!
the attraction force is
a built in property of mass!!
no mass - no real physics !
no Time -no real physics
no Lenght - no real physics !!
Y.Porat
------------------
Igor
> are required to curve spacetime around an object.
Anything but gravity can be included in the source terms of Einstein's
field equations.
Igor
Just because you don't understand something doesn't negate the
existence of it.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Point energy density mass curves space round starting from its center.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
To ya all Space curving is its geometry reality. It concaves for
attraction(Einstein) and convex for repulsion (Glazier) TreBert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Space's substance is round geometry and an inward flow.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein said it is always positive and attractive.
Just like me,
Mitch Raemsch
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Good thought.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The No Boundary proposal that began with Einstein is the reality of
cosmology.
Mitch Raemsch; The hypersphere is more than just the universe
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity is a dark immaterial sphere geometry orginating at the center
of mass density. But this round immaterial curve is not the strength
of gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
===========
idiot crook parrot
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
any attraction force
is a net pro[erty of MASS!!
Y.Porat
------------
Y.Porat
> fdslkfjd wrote:
>
> > Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
> > are required to curve spacetime around an object.
>
> mass.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
--------------------
so ??
idiot!
so it means that it is a property of mass that makes the attraction
force !!!
on the other hand it is witches on brooms that 'curve space'..
see the Circlon idea !!
( again a property of mass!!)
Y.Porat
------------------------.
Y.Porat
-----------------
what is that 'but gravity' of yours
crook??
Y.P
---------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3768ee69-5813-4eec...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 5, 8:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/5/10 11:53 AM, fdslkfjd wrote:
>>
>> > Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
>> > are required to curve spacetime around an object.
>>
>> Background
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
>
> ------------------
> parrot!!
Porat term for someone who understand physics and has the audacity to point
out what physics actually says to Porat.
> nothing is curving space
How do you know?
> th
> e same as nothing can curve a ghost !!
Ghosts are physics
> the attraction force is
> a built in property of mass!!
How to you know?
> no mass - no real physics !
Wrong
> no Time -no real physics
Not much happens if there is no time. But things happen between one instant
and the next
> no Lenght - no real physics !!
Point particles can be considered as having no length (or area, or volume)
.. you can do physics with them just fine
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e93bbbc-c923-4951...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Porat response when he knows he's ignorant
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc881ad9-57f5-417e...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 3:45 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> fdslkfjd wrote:
>>
>> > Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and radiation
>> > are required to curve spacetime around an object.
>>
>> mass.
>>
>> --
>> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most
>> mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
>
> --------------------
> so ??
>
> idiot!
> so it means that it is a property of mass that makes the attraction
> force !!!
It curves space
> on the other hand it is witches on brooms that 'curve space'..
Porat things physics is really witchcraft. He's several centuries behind.
> see the Circlon idea !!
> ( again a property of mass!!)
Utter nonsense
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------------
psychopath
------------------
Y.Porat
------------------
do you have something else
in your Psycho head
except Y.Porat??
go see your psychiatrist !
in psychiatry it is called
*Idea fix **
(or else you have some guilt conscience
for me ?? for stealing from me (:-)
anyway
you place in the garbage of history of science
is insured
even in the history of this modest NG is
insured as well!!)
it is a known decease in psychiatry ... 2
2
since you have a copyright about the
E=n hf
there is a contiguous commit y that wants
to decorete you for that
but they dont know tohome it should bestoerd since ??
to whom should they give it
to ananonymous Inertial ?
that has even no address ?? (:-)
3
now Psycho
where did you disappear while i asked you to define:--
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION FOR
FREQUENCY ??!!!
Y.P
---------------------------------
Inertial
Porat response when he someone knows how his little senile brain works, and
when stalking.
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:009c0c56-bd95-4441...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
You occupy very little space. You are insignificant
> go see your psychiatrist !
You are the one with anger management issues and an obsession with some
Feurebacher (or whatever-his-name-is)
> in psychiatry it is called
> *Idea fix **
So you know nothing of psychiatry too
> (or else you have some guilt conscience
> for me ?? for stealing from me (:-)
Never happened
> anyway
> you place in the garbage of history of science
> is insured
I think you mean 'ensured'. And me defending science against crackpots like
you will mean that I'm not.
> even in the history of this modest NG is
> insured as well!!)
You are already in the garbage, porat.
> it is a known decease in psychiatry ... 2
Gibberish again
> 2
> since you have a copyright about the
> E=n hf
> there is a contiguous commit y that wants
> to decorete you for that
Probably not, since I demonstrated that E = n hf is refuted
> but they dont know tohome it should bestoerd since ??
> to whom should they give it
> to ananonymous Inertial ?
> that has even no address ?? (:-)
of course I have an address.
> 3
> now Psycho
> where did you disappear while i asked you to define:--
Awwww .. you missed me. How sweet. You really are obsessed, aren't you
> WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION FOR
> FREQUENCY ??!!!
As I said .. the same as any physics textbook. There are also plenty of
online definitions of it, if you are confused. You appear to be, because
you seem to think frequency is somehow determined by how long you measure
it. That somehow if you happen to be expressing it in Hz, then it requires
something to only exist for a second, and that if you look at a repeating
event over half a second, or two seconds, or even a million years, that the
frequency changes.
Peter Webb
to why Y.Borat, well that's a question only he can answer.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> You do realise of course that Porat is just a simple play on Borat ? And as
> to why Y.Borat, well that's a question only he can answer.
---------------------
so i may be *you *help anonymous Inertial
to say :
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FREQUENCY ??
actually anyone can say it
but we would like to here it from
Inertial or from anyone eles
after we will here it from ''Inertial''
you will understand why i insist
to here it from that psycho crook !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e571235-f430-40d9...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 1:20 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> You do realise of course that Porat is just a simple play on Borat ? And
>> as
>> to why Y.Borat, well that's a question only he can answer.
>
> ---------------------
> so i may be *you *help anonymous Inertial
> to say :
>
> WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FREQUENCY ??
I've already answered several times now. Look up any physics textbook for a
definition of frequency. I've offered to copy and past some definitions for
you if you like: Here's one for you from wikipedia: "Frequency is the
number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency. It doesn't matter what duration of
time you count the number of occurrences .. the frequency is the same value.
It is not dependent on the duration over which you measure it.
> actually anyone can say it
> but we would like to here it from
> Inertial or from anyone eles
Then read my replies.
> after we will here it from ''Inertial''
you mean 'hear'. And you already have, if you bother reading my replies.
> you will understand why i insist
> to here it from that psycho crook !!!
'hear' .. not 'here'. I'm neither a psycho nor a crook. You insist because
you are obsessed.
Y.Porat
> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency. It doesn't matter what duration of
> time you count the number of occurrences .. the frequency is the same value.
> It is not dependent on the duration over which you measure it.
>
> > actually anyone can say it
> > but we would like to here it from
> > Inertial or from anyone eles
>
> Then read my replies.
>
> >
>
per unit of time???
you must be joking (:-)
and as we know a unit of time is a SECOND!!
right??
so *f*
IT IS TIME DEPENDENT ???
i would like to here it from your mouth
f TIME DEPENDENT
again
f is TIME DEPENDENT ???
right ???
yes or no ??
just one word from you
yes or no ??
no need for much obfuscations
just one word !!
yes
or No ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
-------------------
Inertial
> On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
>> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
>> time."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency. It doesn't matter what
>> duration of
>> time you count the number of occurrences .. the frequency is the same
>> value.
>> It is not dependent on the duration over which you measure it.
>>
>> > actually anyone can say it
>> > but we would like to here it from
>> > Inertial or from anyone eles
>>
>> Then read my replies.
>>
>> >
>>
> -----------------
> per unit of time???
Yes
> you must be joking (:-)
Not at all
> and as we know a unit of time is a SECOND!!
> right??
Doesn't really matter .. in SI units it is seconds.
Regardless .. the frequency is the same no matter how long the light (or
whatever it is) is active. You claim it is time dependent .. but frequency
does NOT depends on whether you measure it for half a second or two seconds
or a million years. The FREQUENCY is still the same.
> so *f*
> IT IS TIME DEPENDENT ???
No .. it is not. Its particular numeric value (like any measurement)
depends on the units of measure .. but not on the time you measure it for.
> i would like to here it from your mouth
> f TIME DEPENDENT
It isn't
> again
> f is TIME DEPENDENT ???
It isn't
> right ???
No
> yes or no ??
No
> just one word from you
> yes or no ??
No
> no need for much obfuscations
I don't
> just one word !!
> yes
> or No ??
No
> TIA
> Y.Porat
Do you get it now ?? I doubt it.
Y.y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a10bf9e1-ce59-4906...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
---------------------
f of E= hf
is defined per one second
right ??
iow
energy emission of a photon is defined per one second
iow
it is the amount of energy emitted in one second
right??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Feynman even had a particle that moved backward in time. (tricky
stuff) Time is controlled by space. Nothing is stuck in "now" Now
does not exist. Its a mental state. It is before and after with a
menbrane in the middle. TreBert
Inertial
news:7055fe30-603a-4643...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a10bf9e1-ce59-4906...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
>> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
>> >> time."http://en.wikipedia.org/w Do you get it now ?? I doubt it.
>
> ---------------------
> f of E= hf
> is defined per one second
> right ??
No
> iow
> energy emission of a photon is defined per one second
No
> iow
> it is the amount of energy emitted in one second
> right??
No
You just have no idea, do you. Frequency (and photon energy) is no more
defined in one second than the speed of a car is.
If you have a car travelling at velocity v (in metres/second) and has the
momentum p = mv .. then that does NOT mean that p is the momentum (or v the
speed) in one second. It is just the momentum (or speed) regardless of the
duration.
In exactly the same way a photon of EMR with frequency f (in Hz) has energy
E = hf .. then that does NOT mean the E is the energy (or f the frequency)
in one second. Its just the energy of the photon (or frequency of EMR)
regardless of the duration.
I've been telling you that for post after post.
J. Clarke
And he knows that if he keeps playing dumb you'll keep correcting him,
so why don't you just give it up as a bad job and quit letting him push
your buttons?
Y.y.Porat
> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7055fe30-603a-4643...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "I >
> > it is the amount of energy emitted in one second
> > right??
>
> No
>
> You just have no idea, do you. Frequency (and photon energy) is no more
> defined in one second than the speed of a car is.
>
> If you have a car travelling at velocity v (in metres/second) and has the
> momentum p = mv .. then that does NOT mean that p is the momentum (or v the
> speed) in one second. It is just the momentum (or speed) regardless of the
> duration.
>
> In exactly the same way a photon of EMR with frequency f (in Hz) has energy
> E = hf .. then that does NOT mean the E is the energy (or f the frequency)
> in one second. Its just the energy of the photon (or frequency of EMR)
> regardless of the duration.
>
> I've been telling you that for post after post.
--------------------------
my above thread was discussion with
the **AMOUNT OF PHOTON ENERGY*
(WITH A SPECIFIC f say f1)
EMITTED*
during a specific time :
during a specific time means that
if it is active say one second it will emmit
x loulse
and in two seconds a photon with tthe same f1
that is active during 2 seconds will emit
2 x loules
right ??
so the **amount of energy**
(again the the amount of energy**)
emitted by a phootn with f1
frqquency
is time dependent ! or not ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
-----------------
Y.y.Porat
> On 3/7/2010 8:58 AM, Inertial wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:7055fe30-603a-4643...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:a10bf9e1-ce59-4906...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> >>> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
-----------------------
imbecile moron Clarck
just follow the discussion
and dont hand wave!!
we are not diplomats
we are scientists
so may be you and answer my question:
do you know the experimental fact that
if during 1 second
photons Emmit x joulse of energy
during 2 seconds they will emit 2 x joules ??
so
is it time depended or not ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Igor
mass space Point energy center. starting its density from curves round
There! I just tossed your word salad for you. All you need to do now
is add dressing.
Igor
The so-called inertial forces, including gravity, are represented by
the solutions to the Einstein equations. That's what it means.
Igor
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
At this point, he'd probably need a four year degree just to graduate
to ignorant.
Y.y.Porat
------------------
imbecile Bolshevic!
of course i never had your education
leaed by Josef Stalin
now
had an imbecile pompous moron like you
ever heard that
NOTING IN OUR UNIVERSE IS DONE
WITHOUT TIME CONSUMING ??
ddint Stalin thought you that
Keep well nasty idiot crook
btw
i am not sure that you dont use more than one identity here !!!
Y.P
------------------
Y.y.Porat
-----------------
it can mean waht ever you like
but nothing in those equations
will work
without mass involved in it
so
mas is the main *hero* there
not you spooky curved space time
btw
there is no Time as well without
*mass in movement ** - involved in it !!
no mass - no real physics
no time - no real physics
no length - no real physics
that is the secret why the MKS system works
though i am a jew
and an admirer of Einstein (for hid other historic achievements )
i say that by that 'curved space'
Einstein was wrong !!
i dont have that 'blind loyalty' to ''my Clan '
as you have
we deal with science not with politics !!
'Hominum errata est '!!
sorry my Roman spelling (:-)
keep well parrot
Y.Porat
---------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time does not curve it slows down and increases back. Space is round.
Spherical geometry begins at the center of mass density and surrounds
it.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.y.Porat
>
> In exactly the same way a photon of EMR with frequency f (in Hz) has energy
> E = hf .. then that does NOT mean the E is the energy (or f the frequency)
> in one second. Its just the energy of the photon (or frequency of EMR)
> regardless of the duration.
>
> I've been telling you that for post after post.
>
> news:7055fe30-603a-4643...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a10bf9e1-ce59-4906...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> >> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
> >> >> time."http://en.wikipedia.org/w Do you get it now ?? I doubt it.
>
> > ---------------------
> > f of E= hf
> > is defined per one second
> > right ??
>
> No
>
> > iow
> > energy emission of a photon is defined per one second
>
> No
>
> > iow
> > it is the amount of energy emitted in one second
> > right??
>
> No
>
> You just have no idea, do you. Frequency (and photon energy) is no more
> defined in one second than the speed of a car is.
>
>
> E = hf .. then that does NOT mean the E is the energy (or f the frequency)
> in one second. Its just the energy of the photon (or frequency of EMR)
> regardless of the duration.
>
> I've been telling you that for post after post.
--------------------------
Mr Inertial
EMR
is photon emission that caries energy !
so we deal with that** AMOUNT OF ENERGY **
that these photon carry !
there is no principal difference between light
or EMR it is the same
th e only difference is the **wave lengths**
so
do you deny that
the *amount of energy* emitted by a photon hf1
during two seconds
is** two times more** than the amount of
photon hf1
during one second ??
dont talk a lot in order to obfuscate
just answer
yes i deny!
or no a agree that in two seconds
we bet twice the energy than in one second
we dont need you fucken crocked examples
and 'explanations ''
just bottom lines !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Y.y.Porat
>
> news:7055fe30-603a-4643...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a10bf9e1-ce59-4906...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> >> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
> >> >> time."http://en.wikipedia.org/w Do you get it now ?? I doubt it.
>
> > ---------------------
> > f of E= hf
> > is defined per one second
> > right ??
>
> No
>
> > iow
> > energy emission of a photon is defined per one second
>
> No
>
> > iow
> > it is the amount of energy emitted in one second
> > right??
>
> No
>
> You just have no idea, do you. Frequency (and photon energy) is no more
> defined in one second than the speed of a car is.
>
>
> E = hf .. then that does NOT mean the E is the energy (or f the frequency)
> in one second. Its just the energy of the photon (or frequency of EMR)
> regardless of the duration.
>
> I've been telling you that for post after post.
--------------------------
Mr Inertial
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anyone care to consider round geomtery instead of Schwarzschild?
What about a round orbit?
Mitch Raemsch
Y.y.Porat
>
> > >> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> > >> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
the light that the sun emits to us is
EMR as well
now my question:
if the sun emitts X joules per second
on one square meter
what will be the amount of joules
that will be emitted by the same sun during
** two seconds**
on that same squarer meter as above ???
no smart guying
just a simple answer
no need for your explanation either
just the bottom line answer :
will it be --
--2 X joules
or not ???
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
BURT
> On Mar 7, 9:10 pm, "Y. 0yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> > > >> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about a circling gravity orbit? like your circular electrons
porat?
This orbit has no strength of gravity only a round curve.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
All of those words work.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Yes
> during a specific time :
Which is the sum of the photon energy arriving for each photon arriving
over that time
> during a specific time means that
> if it is active say one second it will emmit
> x loulse
No... a photon emits energy E = hf once and that's it. You are confusing a
photon with a beam of light made up streams of many many photons. The total
energy of all the photon emitted in a beam of light depend on the number of
photons arriving which depends on how long the beam it shining.
> and in two seconds a photon with tthe same f1
> that is active during 2 seconds will emit
> 2 x loules
> right ??
Wrong
> so the **amount of energy**
> (again the the amount of energy**)
> emitted by a phootn with f1
> frqquency
> is time dependent ! or not ??
Not
Inertial
Not
Inertial
"Y.y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:565a9bd8-6ce1-4284...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
It is electromagnetic waves ('undulations' in the electic and magnetic
fields) .. there are photons (usually plural) associated with such waves
that exchange energy.
EMR is hardly ever a single photon (except under very specific cases where
the number of photons in a beam is reduce to a very slow rate so on e can
detect individual photons) .. if you are talking about sunlight and LED
torches, then they are streams of HUGH numbers of photons. What you are
saying is like saying a river of water flowing is a single water molecule.
> so we deal with that** AMOUNT OF ENERGY **
> that these photon carry !
photonS
> there is no principal difference between light
> or EMR it is the same
yes
> th e only difference is the **wave lengths**
> so
> do you deny that
> the *amount of energy* emitted by a photon hf1
> during two seconds
> is** two times more** than the amount of
> photon hf1
> during one second ??
It isn't tow times more .. the energy is E = hf for each photon.
> dont talk a lot in order to obfuscate
> just answer
> yes i deny!
yes .. i deny
> or no a agree that in two seconds
> we bet twice the energy than in one second
Of course we get twice the nergy from some light in two seconds than one,
because there are twice as many E = hf photons
> we dont need you fucken crocked examples
> and 'explanations ''
You are asking two different questions, so there are two different answers.
I have t distinguish between those questions so the answers make sense to
you (if you have enough understanding to do so)
> just bottom lines !!!
I've given you the bottom line over and over
Inertial
Yes. . i deny that.
> dont talk a lot in order to obfuscate
> just answer
> yes i deny!
>
> or no a agree that in two seconds
> we bet twice the energy than in one second
From a beam of light .. yes . because twice as many E = hf photons
> we dont need you fucken crocked examples
> and 'explanations ''
You are the one who;'s going on about LED torches and calculators
> just bottom lines !!!
I've given you them already
Inertial
More crock examples ??
> the light that the sun emits to us is
>
> EMR as well
Yes
> now my question:
> if the sun emitts X joules per second
> on one square meter
>
> what will be the amount of joules
> that will be emitted by the same sun during
> ** two seconds**
> on that same squarer meter as above ???
2 joules. This is simple arithmetic .. twice as many E = hf photons means
twice the energy
> no smart guying
> just a simple answer
> no need for your explanation either
> just the bottom line answer :
>
> will it be --
> --2 X joules
> or not ???
2 joules. This is simple arithmetic .. twice as many E = hf photons means
twice the energy
BURT
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Mitch Raemsch-
The inward radial space flow programs time slowdown for gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
Downward space flow programs time by dividing time's speed by Gamma.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
energy arriving for each photon arriving
> over that time
>
> > during a specific time means that
> > if it is active say one second it will emmit
> > x loulse
>
> No... a photon emits energy E = hf once and that's it. You are confusing a
> photon with a beam of light made up streams of many many photons. The total
> energy of all the photon emitted in a beam of light depend on the number of
> photons arriving which depends on how long the beam it shining.
>
> > and in two seconds a photon with tthe same f1
>
> > that is active during 2 seconds will emit
> > 2 x loules
> > right ??
>
> Wrong
>
> > so the **amount of energy**
> > (again the the amount of energy**)
> > emitted by a phootn with f1
> > frqquency
> > is time dependent ! or not ??
>
> Not
----------------------
so
the psychopath moron crook anonymous - Inertial=
Artful --
DOES NOT LET EXPERIMENTAL FACTS TO DISTURB HIM !!
go discuss with Josef Goebbels
Y.Porat
------------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82b2683f-94aa-4ea4...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
That does not describe me .. other than anonymous (here at least)
> DOES NOT LET EXPERIMENTAL FACTS TO DISTURB HIM !!
No .. that is your problem, not mine.
What I say is full compatible with experiment evidence.
You DO NOT UNDERSTAND experimental evidence. You IGNORE the experimental
evidence of Planck and others.
> go discuss with Josef Goebbels
We all know he's your hero and inspiration, Porat, you old nazi you.
Y.Porat
> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:565a9bd8-6ce1-4284...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 3:58 pm, "Ine > duration.
>
> >> In exactly the same way a photon of EMR with frequency f (in Hz) has
> >> energy
> >> E = hf .. then that does NOT mean the E is the energy (or f the
> >> frequency)
> >> in one second. Its just the energy of the photon (or frequency of EMR)
> >> regardless of the duration.
>
> >> I've been telling you that for post after post.
> > ---------------------------------
> > On Mar 7, 3:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:7055fe30-603a-4643...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:a10bf9e1-ce59-4906...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Mar 7, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" wikipedia: "Frequency is the
> >> >> >> number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit
now imbecile look what you said:
if there are many photons that are emitted
longer than a second they emmit energy that is
TIME DEPENDENT!!----
( you agreed that in two seconds it is more then in one second
that is why you wrote
E=nhf !!)
------
moreover
the experiment show
as i will prove later (by the led and photoelectric cell experiment)
even if it is many of them emitted (by Led light and ***less then
a second**
it Emmit again **less energy**
ie less the amountof energy emission in one second!! (by the same
logic of yours !!)
so
even if it was MANY PHOTONS
but still
ALL THOSE MANY PHOTONS in a shorter time
(he same number of many photons
in your* logic*
of E=n h f ) as in more then a second!)
EMITED THEIR ENERGY IN LESS THAN A SECOND!!
and it was** less energy* emitted
than during one second compared to what could be emitetd by the same
many photons
during one second
willl you say now that
is it *not* time dependent !!
--------------
and now the other prove from another aspect
it was less energy
in half as energy then that of one second
by another prove !!
the *electron current* that was created by the photon electric cell
is creating LESS ELECTRONS IN
HALF A SECOND THAN IN ONE SECOND**
right ??
each electron caries the same amount -
quantum of energy !! (by Planck and Einstirn !!)
so half the number of electrons
carry HALF OF THE ENERGY
THEN Those electrons that could be emitted ONE SECOND!!
right ??
so again
electron emission that was created by
that Led many photons during less than a second
carry *less (half ) the amount of energy
that could be created by elctrons
that could be creasted along one second
and now a crook IDIOT LIER like you dare to say that
photon energy emission that waS created by
eelctron emission (of the CELL)
---DURING HALF AS SECOND
(and was created by he led light during
** half a second!!)**--
*IS THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY *---
THAT IS CREATED IN
(IN IDENTICAL CONDITINS)
DURING ONE SECOND ???
AND IS NOT
**TIME DEPENDED **???
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
-
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85d72b9a-db3f-417e...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I'm no imbecile. You on the otherhand show all the signs
> look what you said:
Gladly
> if there are many photons that are emitted
> longer than a second
It doesn't matter how far a photon travels (ie how long it exists). It
doesn't matter if it travels a long way (1 light-second) for one second, or
a short distance (like from a torch to a calculator) in a very short time.
The energy it has is E = hf.
> they emmit energy that is
> TIME DEPENDENT!!----
No .. they do not.
The TOTAL energy of the photons is time dependent because the NUMBER of
photons arriving is time dependent.
> ( you agreed that in two seconds it is more then in one second
> that is why you wrote
> E=nhf !!)
No. That was something I wrote as part of showing why it is wrong. I never
claimed it was correct. E = hf is the fact, and the one formula I have been
saying is correct (because it is)
Really.. you should try and keep up
> ------
> moreover
> the experiment show
> as i will prove later (by the led and photoelectric cell experiment)
We've seen it already
> even if it is many of them emitted (by Led light and ***less then
> a second**
Of course there are many photons emitted. Photon after photon after photon
for however long you leave the light on.
> it Emmit again **less energy**
> ie less the amountof energy emission in one second!! (by the same
> logic of yours !!)
Of course, if you have a LED on for less than a second, fewer photons arrive
than if you have it on for more than a second. Its simple math, Porat.
> so
> even if it was MANY PHOTONS
It is
> but still
> ALL THOSE MANY PHOTONS in a shorter time
No. they all exist for the same time
> (he same number of many photons
> in your* logic*
> of E=n h f ) as in more then a second!)
Its not my logic .. it is something I refuted for you. E = hf is the
formula for a single photon energy.
> EMITED THEIR ENERGY IN LESS THAN A SECOND!!
They release their energy in an instant. How long each photon takes to do
so has nothing to do with how long you leave the torch on for.
> and it was** less energy* emitted
> than during one second compared to what could be emitetd by the same
> many photons
> during one second
No .. it is identical energy to what the same number of photons would do in
one second. If the same number of photons arrive in half the time, that
just means the light is brighter.
> willl you say now that
> is it *not* time dependent !!
Yes .. individual photon energy is NOT time dependent. Never has been.
Never will be.
> --------------
> and now the other prove from another aspect
Here we go again
> it was less energy
> in half as energy then that of one second
> by another prove !!
There is no other prove
> the *electron current* that was created by the photon electric cell
> is creating LESS ELECTRONS IN
> HALF A SECOND THAN IN ONE SECOND**
> right ??
of course, because fewer photons are arriving to release electrons. One
electron released per photon.
> each electron caries the same amount -
> quantum of energy !! (by Planck and Einstirn !!)
> so half the number of electrons
> carry HALF OF THE ENERGY
Each carries the same energy .. the total energy of all of them is halved if
there is half as many.
> THEN Those electrons that could be emitted ONE SECOND!!
> right ??
Each is emitted in a very short time. Over a longer period of time, more
electrons can be emitted. One for every photon arriving that has energy E =
hf.
> so again
> electron emission that was created by
> that Led many photons during less than a second
Yes .. over a period of less than a second, many photons are produced .. and
more in a longer period of time. That is what I've been telling you
> carry *less (half ) the amount of energy
> that could be created by elctrons
> that could be creasted along one second
No .. the electrons each carry the same energy. There are just more of them
produced over a longer time meaning larger total energy
> and now a crook IDIOT LIER like you
You are the one shown time and again to lie. Not me
> dare to say that
> photon energy emission that waS created by
> eelctron emission (of the CELL)
> ---DURING HALF AS SECOND
> (and was created by he led light during
> ** half a second!!)**--
>
> *IS THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY *---
>
> THAT IS CREATED IN
> (IN IDENTICAL CONDITINS)
> DURING ONE SECOND ???
Nope .. there is twice as much energy in one second because twice as many
photons hit (each with E = hf) and so twice as many electrons released.
> AND IS NOT
> **TIME DEPENDED **???
Single photon energy is NOT time dependent. The total NUMBER of photons
light transmits IS time dependent.
Do you get it now? Probably not.
Lets try an analogy
Photons carrying energy is like cars carrying people.
The larger the car (the higher frequency the photon), the more people
(energy) each car (photon)carries.
Traffic (light beam) is a stream of cars (photons).
How many people in total (total energy) the traffic (light beam) can deliver
depends on the time the traffic flows (beam shines) for and the number of
people in each car (energy in each photon).
Do you get it now? Probably not.
Y.y.Porat
>
> >> yes .. i deny
>
> >> > or no a agree that in two seconds
> >> > we bet twice the energy than in one second
>
> >> Of course we get twice the nergy from some light in two seconds than one,
> >> because there are twice as many E = hf photons
> > ---------------------
> > now imbecile
>
> I'm no imbecile. You on the otherhand show all the signs
>
> > look what you said:
>
> Gladly
>
> > if there are many photons that are emitted
> > longer than a second
>
> It doesn't matter how far a photon travels (ie how long it exists). It
> doesn't matter if it travels a long way (1 light-second) for one second, or
> a short distance (like from a torch to a calculator) in a very short time.
> The energy it has is E = hf.
>
> > they emmit energy that is
> > TIME DEPENDENT!!----
>
> No .. they do not.
>
> The TOTAL energy of the photons is time dependent because the NUMBER of
> photons arriving is time dependent.
Huray !!
at last soemthing is moving in your
donkey blockhead !!
so
idiot??
but that is all the point of my thread !!
my main claim is that
listen carfully donky
mt claime is that
THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON HAS BOT EVER DEFINED !!
what we are dealing all th etime is
many (again MANY OF THEM !!!)
it was you that claimed that
E=hf is the definition of a single photon
and later you introduces your idiotic
E = n h f
ie
AND *ENDLESS NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
PHOTONS**
WHILE MY TITLE OP WAS ?? REMEMBER??
IT WAS ABOUT REAL *SINGLE PHOTON ENERGY !!!
so why did you entered that idiotic
n h f of yourse ??
that is not relevnt to the op title ??
-------------
> > ( you agreed that in two seconds it is more then in one second
> > that is why you wrote
> > E=nhf !!)
>
> No. That was something I wrote as part of showing why it is wrong. I never
> claimed it was correct. E = hf is the fact, and the one formula I have been
> saying is correct (because it is)
aty th ebegining you said
that IT IS THE DEFINTION OF A SINGLE PHOTON
it is recorded!!
so why later you said that the definitionj of a single photon is
E n h f ??
nast crook lier !!!
IT IS ALL RECORDED CROOCKY
----------------
>
> Really.. you should try and keep up
> ----------------
NASTY PIG
I SHOULD KEEP UP OR YOU ??
--------------------
> > ------
> > moreover
> > the experiment show
> > as i will prove later (by the led and photoelectric cell experiment)
>
> We've seen it already
>
> > even if it is many of them emitted (by Led light and ***less then
> > a second**
>
> Of course there are many photons emitted. Photon after photon after photon
what is photon after photon ??
if you never defined waht is a single photon ???!!
just tell us that is a single photon for you !!
and only then you can talk about photon after photon!!
that isd actually waht i said
by the
MACHINE- GUN bullets METAPHOR
dont you admit that i did it before you ??!!
can a Nazi pig ever admit anything to me ? (:-)
even if it is a writetn fact ??
----------------
---------------------
> for however long you leave the light on.
>
> > it Emmit again **less energy**
> > ie less the amountof energy emission in one second!! (by the same
> > logic of yours !!)
>
> Of course, if you have a LED on for less than a second, fewer photons arrive
> than if you have it on for more than a second. Its simple math, Porat.
--
ibbecile
it is only now that you got it ???!!
that ios what i always said
but the main point that a pidd like you]
stilldont get
the fact that it is many photopns
dpes not make a diffrence tothe fact that
EMISSIONIOF PHOTN ENERGY IS
TIME DEPENDENT !!
got it donkey ??
TIME DEPENDENT !!
onlt in your fucken world there are axctions that are not
timedependent
and i stufed it to your blackhead gfain and again!
PD farted something about 'instantaneously
and you swolowed that 'frog' without blinking an eye??
why ?
because PD said it ???
are you a parrot that does not use hisown mind ??
so listen again genius physicist mathematician
NOTING IN OUR UNIVERSE IS 'DONE'
LITERALLY INSTANTANEOUS !!
to do - is to change
to change is to move something
and to moveis is TIME CUNSUMER!!
had you understand this right from the begiining
you would not show yourself as an idiot parrot !
so
expariments prove that photons energy emmition is
time dependent
hf is not a single photon
it is many phootns created or emitted during
one second !!
andi showed by the Led and photoelectric cell
(THAT I INTRODUCED HER NASNOT YOU !!
beuse i am abit more ecperienced than little
pompous fucker
that does not stop 'teaching' me physics !!
only a little disturbed crook would behave that way !!
-----------
so
i introduced that
Led light andthe photoelectric cell
because thing there are more obvious and tabgible:
acording Planck and Einstein
eelctrons are committed in *quantum behavior
it means
some indivisible quantities of energy
iow
it is not continuous - it annot be any quantity
so the photon emission is in 'jumps '
there is no quantity *between* those quanta
2
Eistein found that eelctrons are mitted as well
not in a continuos way but in jumps
that take time tobe emmited one after theother !!
the electron is aculualting energy and only after that it
accumulated the right amount of energy
it is popping oput !
te energy that is emitetd into it
is a specific amount od energy!!
3
if we have a cell that is emitting a streem of electrons
if the photon energy acting on it
the streem of electrons will be as well constant
and thise electrons are emitetd
one after the other
(provided you learned something
about electric current in a wire !!)
and if you learned you will know
that
THE STREEM OF ELECTRON IN A WIRE
IS TIME DEPENDENT !!
th eformula for elctron streem energy in a wire is
H= v i
H is the energy
v is voltage
anmd i is number of electrons per second
got it dummy
a number of electrons per second!!
do you see that SECOND THERE ??!!
electron energy emission of electric current
is
TIME DEPENDENT
now genius
whare from and HOW did all those
emitted electrons in the photoelectric cell
got their energy ??
doyou ahve still some memory in you head?
if not i wil remind you
HEY TOOK IT FRONT THE PHOTN ENERGY EMISSION!
right until now?
id not ask someone who is more knmowledgable than you ?
so
if we goabck to that photoelectric effect
the photons that emitted that energy to the electrons did it
TIME DEPENDENT not instantaneously !!
and now
ishowed you
if you was clever enough to do my above experiment
that you see in that experient that last
*less than a second* e mitts eelcrons
during a time durqtionj
that is overlapping (more or less)- the photon time emission
butthe main point is that it is all
LESS THAN A SECOND!!
so
the hf i snot a good enough defintion of a single photon
nor your idiotic n h f !!
you n as an integer -does nopt cover my experment case !!
not to menton that your idiotic n h f
is defining an endless number of photons
and that is why i introduced my
E single photon = h fh n
with ' n' has a limiting range:
n bigger than zero but smalelr than 1 000
now
even my definition is not the last definition
the last definition WAS NOT YET DONE!
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A RANGE OF PHOTON ENERGY
BUT A VERY SINGLE SPECIFIC FIGURE !!
that wil may be done in future
so
i am a bit more modest than you are !!!(:-)
but still as it is it is unprecedented!!
and you never in your life did any
unprecedented contribution
and jealousy isd eating you
*actually too many others as well ) ??
never mind it is already recorded
and no hook and no crook of you will do
anything against it!!
keep well
Y.Porat
-------------------
Inertial
news:2cbc16ac-ad7f-4eb7...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I've been telling you since you started all this photon nonsense a couple of
conversation and couple of weeks ago
> so
> idiot??
Not me
> but that is all the point of my thread !!
No
> my main claim is that
> listen carfully donky
> mt claime is that
> THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON HAS BOT EVER DEFINED !!
WRONG. Planck already did it a long time ago
> what we are dealing all th etime is
> many (again MANY OF THEM !!!)
Not ALL the time. We can reduce the brightness of light until you end up
with single photons.
> it was you that claimed that
> E=hf is the definition of a single photon
It is
> and later you introduces your idiotic
> E = n h f
Again .. I NEVER claimed that was true. I refuted it
> ie
> AND *ENDLESS NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
> PHOTONS**
> WHILE MY TITLE OP WAS ?? REMEMBER??
>
> IT WAS ABOUT REAL *SINGLE PHOTON ENERGY !!!
E = hf
> so why did you entered that idiotic
> n h f of yourse ??
To prove you wrong .. which I did.
> that is not relevnt to the op title ??
> -------------
>
>> > ( you agreed that in two seconds it is more then in one second
>> > that is why you wrote
>> > E=nhf !!)
>>
>> No. That was something I wrote as part of showing why it is wrong. I
>> never
>> claimed it was correct. E = hf is the fact, and the one formula I have
>> been
>> saying is correct (because it is)
>
> aty th ebegining you said
> that IT IS THE DEFINTION OF A SINGLE PHOTON
It is the relationship between the energy of a single photon and the
frequency of EMR.
I have said this and nothing but this since the start
> it is recorded!!
Yes .. that E = hf is the energy of single photon
> so why later you said that the definitionj of a single photon is
> E n h f ??
I didn't .. I REFUTED that
> nast crook lier !!!
> IT IS ALL RECORDED CROOCKY
Yes .. it is ,. and your LIES are recorded for all to se
> ----------------
>>
>> Really.. you should try and keep up
>> ----------------
> NASTY PIG
> I SHOULD KEEP UP OR YOU ??
You
> --------------------
>> > ------
>> > moreover
>> > the experiment show
>> > as i will prove later (by the led and photoelectric cell experiment)
>>
>> We've seen it already
>>
>> > even if it is many of them emitted (by Led light and ***less then
>> > a second**
>>
>> Of course there are many photons emitted. Photon after photon after
>> photon
>
> what is photon after photon ??
> if you never defined waht is a single photon ???!!
We have .. Planck found and identified it
> just tell us that is a single photon for you !!
It is a single photon . Gees
> and only then you can talk about photon after photon!!
Of course we can .. we have known about photons for decades.
> that isd actually waht i said
> by the
> MACHINE- GUN bullets METAPHOR
AS I recall, another poster used that metaphor earlier. But certainly the
notion of light as a stream of photons is a long standing one
> dont you admit that i did it before you ??!!
No. Because you didn't In my first replies to you .. and all through this
.. I have been telling you light is a stream of photons.
> can a Nazi pig ever admit anything to me ? (:-)
> even if it is a writetn fact ??
You LIE and CHEAT. I happily admit that you do.
> ----------------
> ---------------------
>
>
>> for however long you leave the light on.
>>
>> > it Emmit again **less energy**
>> > ie less the amountof energy emission in one second!! (by the same
>> > logic of yours !!)
>>
>> Of course, if you have a LED on for less than a second, fewer photons
>> arrive
>> than if you have it on for more than a second. Its simple math, Porat.
> --
> ibbecile
Yes .. you are
> it is only now that you got it ???!!
I have GOT IT from the beginning .. I have not once varied from my postion
> that ios what i always said
No .. it is not
> but the main point that a pidd like you]
> stilldont get
> the fact that it is many photopns
> dpes not make a diffrence tothe fact that
> EMISSIONIOF PHOTN ENERGY IS
> TIME DEPENDENT !!
No .. it is NOT .. experiment proves that
> got it donkey ??
> TIME DEPENDENT !!
WRONG .. as wrong as the day is long
> onlt in your fucken world there are axctions that are not
> timedependent
> and i stufed it to your blackhead gfain and again!
Eh .. that was just gibberish
> PD farted something about 'instantaneously
> and you swolowed that 'frog' without blinking an eye??
> why ?
> because PD said it ???
No .. because *I* said it. And physics says it.
> are you a parrot that does not use hisown mind ??
Of course I do .. you don't have one .. senility has wiped it out
> so listen again genius physicist mathematician
>
> NOTING IN OUR UNIVERSE IS 'DONE'
> LITERALLY INSTANTANEOUS !!
Wrong .. photon creation is instantaneous. I proved it
> to do - is to change
> to change is to move something
> and to moveis is TIME CUNSUMER!!
To move a finite distance takes a finite time. Creating photons does not
> had you understand this right from the begiining
> you would not show yourself as an idiot parrot !
It is irrelevant
> so
> expariments prove that photons energy emmition is
> time dependent
No .. they do NOT. NO EXPERIMENT shows that a single photon energy is time
dependent. NONE !!! They only show that the total energy of a stream of
photons is time dependent
> hf is not a single photon
Yes .. it is
> it is many phootns created or emitted during
> one second !!
No .. it is not. E = hf has NOTHING TO DO WITH A SECOND
> andi showed by the Led and photoelectric cell
The DID NOT SHOW ANYTHING ABOUT SINGLE PHOTONS
> (THAT I INTRODUCED HER NASNOT YOU !!
> beuse i am abit more ecperienced than little
> pompous fucker
> that does not stop 'teaching' me physics !!
You never learn. That is your failure
> only a little disturbed crook would behave that way !!
YOU are the crook and a proven liar,
> -----------
> so
> i introduced that
> Led light andthe photoelectric cell
> because thing there are more obvious and tabgible:
And irrelevant
> acording Planck and Einstein
> eelctrons are committed in *quantum behavior
> it means
> some indivisible quantities of energy
> iow
> it is not continuous - it annot be any quantity
> so the photon emission is in 'jumps '
> there is no quantity *between* those quanta
That's what I've been telling you. And that quantum is E = hf
> 2
> Eistein found that eelctrons are mitted as well
> not in a continuos way but in jumps
> that take time tobe emmited one after theother !!
> the electron is aculualting energy and only after that it
> accumulated the right amount of energy
> it is popping oput !
When the atom absorbs a photon
> te energy that is emitetd into it
> is a specific amount od energy!!
E = hf
> 3
> if we have a cell that is emitting a streem of electrons
> if the photon energy acting on it
> the streem of electrons will be as well constant
> and thise electrons are emitetd
> one after the other
As I've been telling you
> (provided you learned something
> about electric current in a wire !!)
I already know
> and if you learned you will know
> that
> THE STREEM OF ELECTRON IN A WIRE
> IS TIME DEPENDENT !!
The total number of them, yes.
> th eformula for elctron streem energy in a wire is
>
> H= v i
> H is the energy
> v is voltage
> anmd i is number of electrons per second
>
> got it dummy
> a number of electrons per second!!
> do you see that SECOND THERE ??!!
Oh gees. You going to say that electron energy is dependent on the second
as well. You're a total moron.
>
> electron energy emission of electric current
> is
> TIME DEPENDENT
It is the total energy of all the electrons flowing
Just like light energy is the total energy of all the photons
> now genius
> whare from and HOW did all those
> emitted electrons in the photoelectric cell
> got their energy ??
From the individual photons of energy E = hf
> doyou ahve still some memory in you head?
> if not i wil remind you
> HEY TOOK IT FRONT THE PHOTN ENERGY EMISSION!
> right until now?
Yes .. all those E = hf photons that arrive in a stream
> id not ask someone who is more knmowledgable than you ?
Noone around like that
> so
> if we goabck to that photoelectric effect
> the photons that emitted that energy to the electrons did it
> TIME DEPENDENT not instantaneously !!
The number of photons is time dependent .. the energy of each photon is not
> and now
> ishowed you
> if you was clever enough to do my above experiment
No need
> that you see in that experient that last
> *less than a second* e mitts eelcrons
The time duration doesn't have any relevance .. whether it is half a second
or one second or minutes or hours. Each photon still has the same energy .
.THere is just more of them over a longer time
> during a time durqtionj
> that is overlapping (more or less)- the photon time emission
> butthe main point is that it is all
> LESS THAN A SECOND!!
That is totally irrelevant . A second is an arbitrary time interval
> so
> the hf i snot a good enough defintion of a single photon
It is
> nor your idiotic n h f !!
That is not anything I claim is correct .. that is what I refuted, you
fucking moron
> you n as an integer -does nopt cover my experment case !!
That is not anything I claim is correct .. that is what I refuted, you
fucking moron
> not to menton that your idiotic n h f
You just did mention it, you moron
That is not anything I claim is correct .. that is what I refuted, you
fucking moron
> is defining an endless number of photons
There can be as many photons as you like.. just leave the light on longer
> and that is why i introduced my
>
> E single photon = h fh n
Which is FUCKING RIDICULOUS
> with ' n' has a limiting range:
Yes .. n = 1
> n bigger than zero but smalelr than 1 000
WRONG WRONG WRONG
> now
> even my definition is not the last definition
> the last definition WAS NOT YET DONE!
That makes no sense
> BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A RANGE OF PHOTON ENERGY
> BUT A VERY SINGLE SPECIFIC FIGURE !!
> that wil may be done in future
> so
> i am a bit more modest than you are !!!(:-)
No .. you aren't. You're overly full of your own importance
> but still as it is it is unprecedented!!
Its bullshit
> and you never in your life did any
> unprecedented contribution
Yawn
> and jealousy isd eating you
BAHAHAHAH .. you've GOT to be kidding .. why would I be jealous of a senile
old moron like you who is so close to death its not funny.
> *actually too many others as well ) ??
You're deluded
> never mind it is already recorded
> and no hook and no crook of you will do
> anything against it!!
Fuck off and die you stupid old fucker
Y.y.Porat
>
---------------------------
psychopath imbecile moron pig
go discuss with Josef Goebbels
bye
Y.P
---------------------------
Igor
A wise man learns something about a subject ere he criticizes it.
Else he ends up looking like a total fool. Just like you.
Y.Porat
-----------------
just do the experiment i suggested
and learn something new
or else
you will remain a parrot to therest of your life!
it seesm that you dont mind tobe
aparrot to th rrst of your life !
may be even you make your living from it (:-)
in Stalins empire it was the same (:-)
(but whereis that empire now ?? (:-)
nothing of you will remain as well ...
keep well
Y.Porat
-------------------
Inertial
You are not fit to discuss physics with .. you lie and cheat and have no
real knowledge of the subject. Keep your nonsense to yourself, you old
nazi.
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fe421de-7942-4e00...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
There is nothing 'new' about your experiment
> or else
> you will remain a parrot to therest of your life!
> it seesm that you dont mind tobe
> aparrot to th rrst of your life !
What is wrong with using physics that is in agreement with experimental
evidence .. You should try it sometime
> may be even you make your living from it (:-)
> in Stalins empire it was the same (:-)
> (but whereis that empire now ?? (:-)
> nothing of you will remain as well ...
> keep well
Drop dead
Igor
What experiment is that, Borat? Your protocols must have gotten lost
in your gibberish.
BURT
> On Mar 7, 8:45 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > On Mar 6, 8:19 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 6, 7:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Mar 5, 8:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >> > > > Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and
> > >> > > > radiation
> > >> > > > are required to curve spacetime around an object.
>
> > >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
> > >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
>
> > >> > ------------------
> > >> > parrot!!
>
> > >> > nothing is curving space
> > >> > th
> > >> > e same as nothing can curve a ghost !!
>
> > >> > the attraction force is
> > >> > a built in property of mass!!
>
> > >> > no mass - no real physics !
> > >> > no Time -no real physics
> > >> > no Lenght - no real physics !!
>
> > >> > Y.Porat
> > >> > -----------------
>
> > >> Just because you don't understand something doesn't negate the
> > >> existence of it.
>
> > > idiot crook parrot
>
> > Porat response when he knows he's ignorant
>
> --------------------
> psychopath
> ------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The gravity frame is a round curved space that is energyless though it
is generated at center by mass-density.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
------------------
Hi little Josef Goebbels
what was your father doing during WW2?
-------------------------
--------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
see my other thread
something like (i quote from memory)
'A better new definition for the real
single photon **energy emission'
it i s very simple
but not to fucken armchair mathematician
that call themselves teachers of physics
they might be teachers in parrot land !!
and that is why current physics is stuck in the mud with Higgs Bosons
etc
**just do it with your hands **
**AND THINK **!
dont be chained to apradigms
or vane mumbligs
think about
plancks findings
and Einsteins as well wi tht e photon electric -phenomenon
that is quantum natured
ie not continuous based on some
basic indivisible quanta of energy
think about youleraned in basic electriciry
that if you ahve a constant flow of electrons is is defined by
H = v i
whiole H is the energy
and i is
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS *PER SECOND**
again:
number of eelctrons Per second!!
ie Time dependent
(in two seconds it is twice the number than in one second etec
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d267296-c38e-401c...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
None of your business. Shame you didn't do what yours did.
Y.Porat
all you need for that experiment is
a Led torch
and any device that is opperated
by photoelectric cells
th esimplest that i used is
a pocket calculator energized by photoelectric
cells
in that calculatoe you have of course
a screen that is iooerated by
**a constant stream of electrons
that are suplied by the constant streem of
photon energy
thatis converted toa linear constant electron stream !
no need to mention that i asked to operate the Led torch to **less
than a second**
in order to refute the common 'understanding that
E=hf
is the definition of a *single photon8
because f is number of wave lengths --
pER SECOND !!
during half a second we get *Half* of the number of wavelengths
than in one second !!!
so
and it is shown nicely i my experiment:
ie
you operatethe torch during half a secon
and the computer screen lights up for half a second and then
imediately shuts up
((more or less overlapping the
'ligfe time of the Led light ))
he screen of the computer light up
very fast after the activated torch
**but still not instantaneously*
a very short time but not zero time
and the same by turning off !!
so
if it is donein half a second
and actually you can do it
during much less than half a second
it is an historic simple prove that
hf is not the definition of a single photon
energy emission
buit many many of them
and the real singlephoton is active
ways less than a second
and it was never before realy defined
or found !!!
but i at least
defined that range of time
in which it has to be found in future
it is definitively less than a second
and clearly more than (the fucken) instantaneously !!
and obviously surely and even theoretically
TIME DEPENDENT !!!
nothinginour universe is done instantaneously
anyone who is talking about instantaneously doing
anything is a fucken
big mouth armchair mathematician
not a real physicist
**not even a **theoretical * physicist **!!
theory must be based on
adequate -- experimental facts !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Inertial
There's no need to perform it . .we all know what happens
> in that calculatoe you have of course
> a screen that is iooerated by
> **a constant stream of electrons
> that are suplied by the constant streem of
> photon energy
> thatis converted toa linear constant electron stream !
> no need to mention that i asked to operate the Led torch to **less
> than a second**
> in order to refute the common 'understanding that
> E=hf
which you do not refute .. as E = hf explains it perfectly as it is
> is the definition of a *single photon8
it is the formula relating the energy of a single photon (not energy per
second) corresponding to EMR of frequency f
> because f is number of wave lengths --
> pER SECOND !!
They are the units we use .. but E = hf is NOT time dependent. It is simply
the energy the photon carries
> during half a second we get *Half* of the number of wavelengths
> than in one second !!!
We get half the photons arriving in half the time, and so half the energy
> so
> and it is shown nicely i my experiment:
It shows the E = hf works just fine.
> ie
> you operatethe torch during half a secon
> and the computer screen lights up for half a second and then
> imediately shuts up
> ((more or less overlapping the
> 'ligfe time of the Led light ))
> he screen of the computer light up
> very fast after the activated torch
> **but still not instantaneously*
> a very short time but not zero time
> and the same by turning off !!
> so
> if it is donein half a second
> and actually you can do it
> during much less than half a second
> it is an historic simple prove that
>
> hf is not the definition of a single photon
> energy emission
It does not prove that hf is not the energy of a single photon .. it
SUPPORTS IT !!
> buit many many of them
> and the real singlephoton is active
> ways less than a second
It is created and destroyed instantly. The enrgy it release is used VERY
quickly.
> and it was never before realy defined
> or found !!!
It was .. By Planck and others
> but i at least
> defined that range of time
> in which it has to be found in future
No .. because it has ALREADY BEEN DONE. And the energy is released in FAR
less than a second. E = hf does NOT define energy per second. It is
energy.
> it is definitively less than a second
AS we already know .. nothing new about that
> and clearly more than (the fucken) instantaneously !!
Photon creation and destruction is in an instant. The use of the energy
released by the destruction is not .. but still very quick
> and obviously surely and even theoretically
> TIME DEPENDENT !!!
No .. not at ALL time dependent. It has been tested experientally and the
energy of a single photon is E = hf.
> nothinginour universe is done instantaneously
> anyone who is talking about instantaneously doing
> anything is a fucken
> big mouth armchair mathematician
> not a real physicist
> **not even a **theoretical * physicist **!!
No .. they understand the physics. A photon is an indivisible object
(quantum) .. all indivisible objects must be created and destroyed in an
instant, because it is not possible for them to only partly exist. This is
just pure simple logic.
> theory must be based on
> adequate -- experimental facts !!
Which is what all I have said IS based. You claims have NO BASIS IN
EXPERIMENTAL FACTS. There is NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT the suggest other
than E = hf for the energy of a SINGLE PHOTON.
My god, you're thick as two bricks, Porat.
Igor
Again, what experiment are you talking about? So far all I see is
nonsensical gibberish. To do an experiment, we need to know what type
of apparatus to use and what the tolerances are, for starters. We
also need to know what materials to use. So far, none of this has
been laid out in your gibberish. So where is it?
Igor
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.
Y.Porat
-----------------
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 !!
anywat
Thank you Igor for your interest
and apposite questions
-------------------------------
(now we will see Inertial = Artful = anonymous - in hysteria !!
the man cannot control himself from being
a personal insane enemy !!
and you will not see a single word of
physics arguments
no matter what i wil say !!
except his mad hand wavings
he '''does not let experimental data
to disturb him'''
he does not need SIMPLE experiments at all
especially if it is suggested by Y.Porat his personal enemy
if it was suggested by say PD
he would accept it
it is called ''pride and prejudice '
just the CERN experiments for
higgs Bosons -- speak to him ...
and may be some others here (:-))
and the peculiar thing is
that there are here so many people to discuss with
while he cannt forget about me for a moment
and is determined no matter what i do
to not let me even to breathe (:-)
yet he does not know
with whom he has business..... (:-)
that is called in psychology
'Idea fix ' a kind of mental decease
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Igor
>
> read more »-
You're hopeless. You write pages and pages of nonsense. I don't have
enough time to translate your hopeless gibberish.
BURT
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:574ec228-2543-465a...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > the man cannot control himself from being
> > a personal insane enemy !!
>
>
>
>
> > and you- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Slow time is in curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
>
> > 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
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
i preffere to answer
and ad explanations in my original tread about it
so i will divert the discussion to the original
thread of it
ATB
Y.Porat
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Multiple gravity sources slow down time at a single point. There is
more than one time slowdown when there is more than one gravity
source. There is also multiple geometries for a single space likewise.
This is gravity for the muti body system.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Energy flows through gravity. Its aether rates slow down by energy
speed through space and gravity strength in space. The two aether
rates come together as one aether flow direction over the energy and
field. This Aether flows in the direction of matter's flow through
space.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The one aether flow is where flowing energy and its fields of matter
and light are.
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
Hebe Herbie, G=EMC^2 "bert" <herbertg...@msn.com> wrote
Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
fdslkfjd wrote:
Just wondering what kinds of potentials, fields, waves, and
radiation are required to curve spacetime around an object.
>
Background [for obsessive mental masturbation]
[snipped]
>
Hebe Herbie:
Sam Those that hate Einstein and SR and GR having low wit and
trying to up their ego will hate that site. I have posted ny concave &
convex cruve space theory & they hate me. It show people are afrain
when ideas are new. Out of the box thinking seems to take time.
TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHAHA... So, Hebe-Herbie
you really must be quite self-loathing in your geriatric megalomania
if you believe that somebody will hate you because of your splendid
--- "ny [New Yorker] concave & convex cruve space theory" ---
>
Listen to and take the advice that was given to you by your ilk's
Grand Beauty Queen, aka Israel's ex-PM who said upon you:
|||Golda Meir:: "Hebe Herbie, don't take yourself so serious.
|||Golda Meir:: "You are not that important" ...
But I have better new for you Herbie:
All the Hebes in/of/from NY will love you since you have put them
onto the cosmic map with your |||="cruve-groovy NYC&CCS"=|||
theory that is quite entertaining and absolutely true and correct
in, to & for your own mind.
Congrats. Thanks for the laughs, Herbie... ahahaha... ahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---