E minimum = hf times n while 0 < n <<<1.000!

[Y.Porat]

E minimum = hf times n
while 0 < n <<<1.000 !!!!
----
it included followed and verified by a simple experiment
with Led light and a photoelectric cell !!

That is my historic new formula
for the **real** single photon Energy !!
and not the common understanding of a
'' single photon ''

for anyone who really understand it --
(and is not the common parrot)

it has a far going meaning !!
that will explain a lot of confusion
in ' modern physics''
like

a single photon interfering with itself''

'a photon acting on another one from distance'

''a photon 'changing its( mass /energy) while entering a secondary
frame''
etc etc etc

it is some revolution in modern physics
and was done
more than a year before by me !!

just * one* of my old copyrights)

Eng Yehiel Porat

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 7, 12:39 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> E minimum  = hf times n
>  while 0 < n <<<1.000   !!!!

OK, in the other thread where we "discussing" mass and inertia, you
were refusing to answer questions, and told me to ask them in this
thread, and said that you would answer them here. Well, let us see if
you have that much honesty.

Let me start with this question:

You claimed, quite explicitly, that I was wrong when I stated "Whether
E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years, and it isn't
relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the same thing
as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising."

What's wrong? I said

(i) E=hf predates relativity by years. Is that wrong?

(ii) E=hf isn't relativistic. Is that wrong?

(iii) E=hf is a quantum thing. Is that wrong?

(iv) Relativity is not the same thing as quantum theory. Is that
wrong?

(v) That points (i)-(iv) above are not new or surprising. Is that
wrong?

You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 9, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:39 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > E minimum  = hf times n
> >  while 0 < n <<<1.000   !!!!
>
> OK, in the other thread where we "discussing" mass and inertia, you
> were refusing to answer questions, and told me to ask them in this
> thread, and said that you would answer them here. Well, let us see if
> you have that much honesty.
>
> Let me start with this question:
>
> You claimed, quite explicitly, that I was wrong when I stated "Whether
> E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years, and it isn't
> relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the same thing
> as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising."
>
> What's wrong? I said

> --------------------
untill now
that s OK !!
----

> (i) E=hf predates relativity by years. Is that wrong?

>------------------
it was me who devoted a special thread for it
now the important thing is to make one strep forwards
ie
IF
E=hf is not relativistic then
anything init
is not relativistic includingthe mas in it
AND THAT IS NOT WAHT 'MODERN PHYSICS SAY
AND BUILD A MOUNTAIN OF NONSENSE PHYSICS ON IT !!
---------------------------

> (ii) E=hf isn't relativistic. Is that wrong?

> -------------
nothing wrong yet my focus is on
nothing in it ias relativistic ~~
espacially not the mass in it !!!
-----------
---------

> (iii) E=hf is a quantum thing. Is that wrong?
>
> (iv) Relativity is not the same thing as quantum theory. Is that
> wrong?

> --------------
OK but you step a side and stem aside from my above Goal
that is not clear to most physicists !!
----------

> (v) That points (i)-(iv) above are not new or surprising. Is that
> wrong?

>-------------
i answered
------------

> You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?

nothing wrong
waht is wrong is that you didint make to important step forwards !
that
if th e mass in energy is not relativistic
then surely non of mass cases
is not relativistic
while physics waist ed a whole certury
on relativistic mass
while it is wrong !!
------------------
2
now lete s go further
you raised the question of
mass and its behavior in a secondary
moving mass
---
as to say that in a secondary moving mass
'the mass is CHANGING ITS QUANTITY
RELATIVE TO RELATIVE MOVEMENT''
whie i say that
had you really understand that
E=HF IS NOT THE FORMULA OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON
you would not thinkl that mass in the secondary frame
is changing from the original mass !!
you would understand that
MASS IS CONSERVE!!
no matter if in one frame or two frames
or 3 frames
IT IS CONSERVED AS ENERGY IS CONSERVED!!
now i leave you to answer
on what base i claim that mass is conserved
even in mutual moments of frames

a hint:
it is based on my (historic ) finding that
E=hf is not the formula of the real single photon !

and mind you i proved it scientifically !!

so how do i connect and explain the two
above claims
ie
that the fact that E=hf i s not the real single phootn
with the claime that mass even in moving frames is not relativistic
iow
it is ALWAYS constant !!??
the same way that energy is always constant
btw
my claime is that
Energy is
MASS IN MOVEMENT!!
and both are conserved
that is (mind you )
NOT THE COMMON PARADIGM !!
those are innovations of mine !!!

and i even go much further:
i say

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS!!
is that an innovation of mine or not ??!!

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
--------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 10, 6:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
>
> nothing wrong

So, if nothing was wrong in any of the above, why did you say it was
wrong? Why didn't you answer in the previous thread? Would have saved
a lot of time!

OK, next question:

Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm.

(i,c) What is the momentum of this pulse of light?

(i,d) What do you say its "mass" is?

Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the same direction as
the pulse of light, what is

(ii,a) its wavelength?

(ii,b) its energy?

(ii,c) its momentum?

(ii,d) What do you say its "mass" is?

Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
direction as the pulse of light, what is

(iii,a) its wavelength?

(iii,b) its energy?

(iii,c) its momentum?

(iii,d) What do you say its "mass" is?

[james thomas]

H bar is set to one. For a wrong reason.

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 9, 10:58 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
>
> > nothing wrong
>
> So, if nothing was wrong in any of the above, why did you say it was
> wrong? Why didn't you answer in the previous thread? Would have saved
> a lot of time!

> -----------------------
you are a bad listener

i told you that
i want this discussion
in my above specific thread and not in another one
GOT IT AT LAST OR NOT ??
--------------------------------

> OK, next question:
>
> Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm.
>
> (i,c) What is the momentum of this pulse of light?

--------------
it is hf /c
i dont need the arithmetic
because unlike you
i know
'to catch the bull by its horns'''
i n minimal work !!
-----------------

>
> (i,d) What do you say its "mass" is?

now comes he MAIN CATCH POINT !!
THAT YOU DON T UNDERSTAND

IT IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON
IT IS A HUGE NUMBER OF SINGLE PHOTONS !!!
soif you want to know what is the
COLLECTIVE MASS OF ALL OF THEM
of that huge number of those single photon
>
it is
hf /c^2
------------

> Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the same direction as
> the pulse of light, what is
>
> (ii,a) its wavelength?

>-----------------
you do trhe arthmetics
ingeneral thewave length will be
LONGER THAN THE ORIGINAL
IN OTHER WORDS
LESS ENERGY AND LESS MASS !!!
WHY ??
ARE YOU CLEAVE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND WHY ??
(even i spoon feed you ????)
------

> (ii,b) its energy?
>
> (ii,c) its momentum?

----------
h f2/c^2 !!!
--------------

>
> (ii,d) What do you say its "mass" is?

> --------------
----------------------
hf2/c ( please not that f2 instead of f1-ie the original f)
-------------
-------------------

> Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
> direction as the pulse of light, what is
>
> (iii,a) its wavelength?

> ------------------
more than the original Lambda
------------

> (iii,b) its energy?
> -------------

h f 2 /c^2
-----------------
> (iii,c) its momentum?
-----------
hf2 /c
------------

>
> (iii,d) What do you say its "mass" is?

-----------------

hf2/c^2
but please note

IN FRAME ''2'' IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL
""PHOTON """
(IT IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON

IT IS A HUGE COLLECTION OF SINGLE PHOTONS not one photon !!
NOW LISTEN CAREFUL!!
i mean careful !!!
just tell me why i say
it is not the original ''photon''

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:

> On Nov 9, 10:58 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 6:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 9, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
> >
> > > nothing wrong
> >
> > So, if nothing was wrong in any of the above, why did you say it was
> > wrong? Why didn't you answer in the previous thread? Would have saved
> > a lot of time!
> > -----------------------
> you are a bad listener
>
> i told you that
> i want this discussion
> in my above specific thread and not in another one
> GOT IT AT LAST OR NOT ??
> --------------------------------
> > OK, next question:
> >
> > Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm.
> >
> > (i,c) What is the momentum of this pulse of light?
> --------------
> it is hf /c

No, it isn't. A 1J pulse of light is _not_ a single photon. Nothing about
photons was mentioned, just a pulse of light, of total energy 1J. At
500nm, that is lots and lots of photons.

You can try again and do it right, if you want, but perhaps your answers
are thorough enough. Let us see.

> > (i,d) What do you say its "mass" is?
>
> now comes he MAIN CATCH POINT !!
> THAT YOU DON T UNDERSTAND
>
> IT IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON
> IT IS A HUGE NUMBER OF SINGLE PHOTONS !!!
> soif you want to know what is the
> COLLECTIVE MASS OF ALL OF THEM
> of that huge number of those single photon
> >
> it is
> hf /c^2

IJ of 500nm light is _not_ a single photon. I know it isn't a single
photon. I didn't say that it was a single photon.

Anyway, you say hf/c^2. (Should be 1J/c^2.)

> ------------
>
> > Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the same direction as
> > the pulse of light, what is
> >
> > (ii,a) its wavelength?
> >-----------------
> you do trhe arthmetics
> ingeneral thewave length will be
> LONGER THAN THE ORIGINAL
> IN OTHER WORDS
> LESS ENERGY AND LESS MASS !!!
> WHY ??
> ARE YOU CLEAVE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND WHY ??
> (even i spoon feed you ????)

So, you refuse to answer questions, despite saying that you would. It
isn't difficult arithmetic.

A: 550nm, to a sufficiently good approximation.

> ------
> > (ii,b) its energy?

0.9J

> > (ii,c) its momentum?
> ----------
> h f2/c^2 !!!

No, it isn't a single photon. 0.9J of 550nm light is not a single photon.

> --------------
> >
> > (ii,d) What do you say its "mass" is?
> > --------------
> ----------------------
> hf2/c ( please not that f2 instead of f1-ie the original f)

0.9J/c^2 (close enough). Do you disagree?

The important point is that the hf2/c (h f2 / c^2, surely this is meant to
be) is not the same as your hf/c^2 for case (i), since f2 is different
from f1.

> -------------------
> > Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
> > direction as the pulse of light, what is
> >
> > (iii,a) its wavelength?
> > ------------------
> more than the original Lambda

No, less. This is blueshifted. Try 450nm (to a sufficiently good
approximation).

> > (iii,b) its energy?
> > -------------
>
> h f 2 /c^2

No. You already used f2 for the red-shifted case. The frequency here will
_not_ be the same.

Also, that's not an energy.

Try 1.1J

> -----------------
> > (iii,c) its momentum?
> -----------
> hf2 /c

Not a single photon.

> ------------
> >
> > (iii,d) What do you say its "mass" is?
>
> -----------------
>
> hf2/c^2

1.1J/c^2. Do you disagree?

> but please note
>
> IN FRAME ''2'' IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL
> ""PHOTON """
> (IT IS NOT A SINGLE PHOTON
>
> IT IS A HUGE COLLECTION OF SINGLE PHOTONS not one photon !!
> NOW LISTEN CAREFUL!!
> i mean careful !!!
> just tell me why i say
> it is not the original ''photon''

1J of 500nm light is _not_ a single photon. 0.9J of 550nm light is _not_ a
single photon. 1.1J of 450nm light is _not_ a single photon.

Single photons are irrelevant here. Photons are irrelevant here. E=hf is
irrelevant here. Why you are bothering to talk about photons when they are
completely irrelevant, I don't know.

For the above 3 cases, we have, according to your usage of "mass", 3
different masses:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2

(ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2

(iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2

Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree, what do you say that the "masses" are?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 10, 8:27 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:58 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 6:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 9, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
>
> > > > nothing wrong
>
> > > So, if nothing was wrong in any of the above, why did you say it was
> > > wrong? Why didn't you answer in the previous thread? Would have saved
> > > a lot of time!
> > > -----------------------
> > you are a bad listener
>
> > i told you that
> > i want this  discussion
> > in my above specific thread and not in another     one
> > GOT IT AT LAST  OR   NOT  ??
> > --------------------------------
> > > OK, next question:
>
> > > Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm.
>
> > > (i,c) What is the momentum of this pulse of light?
> > --------------
> > it is hf /c
>
> No, it isn't. A 1J pulse of light

---------------------
a pulse of light is not photons ??
LIGHT IS NOT PHOTONS
??
YOU SEE YOU ARE WRONG RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING !!!
lets here what other readers think about it .....

Y.P
-------------------------------------
-------------

[PD]

hf/c is the momentum of a single photon. It is not the momentum of a
pulse of light, which is composed of many, many photons.

Surely, Porat, you can understand this.

If you can't, then you are so numerically illiterate that you've got no
business talking about dimensions and units.

> ??
> YOU SEE YOU ARE WRONG RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING !!!
> lets here what other readers think about it .....

That's what I think.

[E=hf => E is kg*m^2/s^2 => what kind of mass is that kg? There is only
one "kilogram", and so there is only one kind of mass => there is no
relativistic mass => there is no relativity. Yuk yuk yuk, what a
goofball train of thought.]

[Y.Porat]

-------------------------
Good morning PD
is that what you said a few years ago ::

didnt you say THEN NOT NOW UNDER MY PRESSURE)

that hf is the definition of a single

AGAIN A SINGLE **single **!!) photon Enrgy ??
THAT IS WAHT YOU AND YOUR PARROTS
CLAIMED ALONG MANY YEARS !!!

-------------------------

>
> Surely, Porat, you can understand this.

do **you** understand that
E=hf is NOT (again NOT(
the formula of a *****single**** photon ??!!
-------------

>
> If you can't,
i cant ?? (:-)
do you can ??

crooky!!

is E=hf si the formula of the real single photon
or not ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------

then you are so numerically illiterate that you've got no
> business talking about dimensions and units.
>
> > ??
> > YOU SEE YOU ARE WRONG RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING !!!
> > lets here what other readers think about it .....
>
> That's what I think.
>
> [E=hf => E is kg*m^2/s^2 =>

t what kind of mass is that kg?

and what is what you say ??
about that kilogram in h ??
is it relativistic ??

is there anything in hf that is relativistic ??
even Timo agreed that
there is nothing relativistic in hf
!!

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 10, 9:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:27 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 10:58 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > > OK, next question:
>
> > > > Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm.
>
> > > > (i,c) What is the momentum of this pulse of light?
> > > --------------
> > > it is hf /c
>
> > No, it isn't. A 1J pulse of light
>
> ---------------------
> a pulse of light is not photons ??
> LIGHT IS NOT PHOTONS
> ??

I said (and you cut): "At 500nm, that is lots and lots of photons." A
pulse of light _is_ photons, and with 1J and 500nm, lots and lots of
photons. It _isn't_ a single photon. I said this clearly. Didn't you
understand? Can you understand English? If you don't understand, don't
just cut it; ask for clarification.

Doesn't matter where a pulse of light is made up of photon - a 1J
pulse of light isn't a single photon. Nothing about

photons was mentioned, just a pulse of light, of total energy 1J. At
500nm, that is lots and lots of photons.

Those symbols you are throwing around up there have numerical values.
Let us see what the result is:

h = 6.626e-34 kg.m^2/s
c = 3.00e8 m/s

We have lambda = 5e-7 m, so f = c/lambda = 6e14 Hz.

We have hf = 4.0e-19J. (Note that this _isn't_ at all close to the 1J
energy of the pulse!)

According to the usual theory (Umov, Poynting, relativity, and
experiment agree), we have momentum

p = E/c = 3.3e-9 N.s

According to your answer,

p = hf/c = 1.3e-27 N.s,

which disagrees with experiment (and the previous result) by _many_
orders of magnitude.

> YOU SEE YOU ARE WRONG RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING !!!
> lets here what other readers think about it .....

Single photons are irrelevant here. Photons are irrelevant here. E=hf
is irrelevant here. Why you are bothering to talk about photons when

they are completely irrelevant, I don't know. It's the question I was
asking all along, and the question that was relevant to the discussion
in the previous thread where I originally asked it. For some reason,
you _refused_ to answer it there (despite having been participating in
the discussion there), and _demanded_ that I ask it here (despite it
not being relevant to _this_ thread).

You demanded that I ask these questions here, and said that you would
answer them here. I am asking, but you're not answering.

For the 3 cases of the original 500nm pulse, and the redshifted and
blueshifted pulses, we have, according to your usage of "mass", 3

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 10, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:27 am, Timo Nieminen

> > > > --------------
> > > > it is hf /c > We have hf = 4.0e-19J. (Note that this _isn't_ at all close to the 1J

> energy of the pulse!)
>
> According to the usual theory (Umov, Poynting, relativity, and
> experiment agree), we have momentum
>
> p = E/c = 3.3e-9 N.s
>
> According to your answer,
>
> p = hf/c = 1.3e-27 N.s,
>
> which disagrees with experiment (and the previous result) by _many_
> orders of magnitude.

> -----------------------------------
==============================
but you didnt read my op post !!!

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ***MINIMUM PHOTON ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON **

AND WHILE YOU TOOK A PULSE OF LIGHT
OF A MUCH BIGGER ENERGY
YOU DDINT TELL US
HOW ANY SINGLE MINIMAL PHOTONS YOU HAVE THERE in your example !!!
again
you didnt tell us ** how many single photons are in your specific
example **
and by that you dont understand my op post point :
(what is the energy of a single photon for me
and what you are dealing in YOUR example
so you contradicted nothing of my op assertion !!!
and probably do not relamber or understand about what
i am dealing with .
--------------
if so you cant make any quantitative calculation
about how many single photons
you ** and me **--- are dealing with
got it ( in comparison to my above historic formula)
so
you contradict nothing of my above formula
'''i talk about eggs
and you talk about hens ..'''''..
that is why i snip all the irrelevant
(to my op issue) rest of your post

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
----------------------
>

[Timo Nieminen]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:

> On Nov 10, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 9:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 10, 8:27 am, Timo Nieminen
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > it is hf /c > We have hf = 4.0e-19J. (Note that this _isn't_ at all close to the 1J
> > energy of the pulse!)
> >
> > According to the usual theory (Umov, Poynting, relativity, and
> > experiment agree), we have momentum
> >
> > p = E/c = 3.3e-9 N.s
> >
> > According to your answer,
> >
> > p = hf/c = 1.3e-27 N.s,
> >
> > which disagrees with experiment (and the previous result) by _many_
> > orders of magnitude.
> > -----------------------------------
> ==============================
> but you didnt read my op post !!!
>
> I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ***MINIMUM PHOTON ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON **

I wasn't. I never said that I was. In the previous thread where you
started talking about this stuff, we weren't talking about single photons,
either - 1kg of photons in a box is not a single photon.

> AND WHILE YOU TOOK A PULSE OF LIGHT
> OF A MUCH BIGGER ENERGY
> YOU DDINT TELL US
> HOW ANY SINGLE MINIMAL PHOTONS YOU HAVE THERE in your example !!!
> again
> you didnt tell us ** how many single photons are in your specific
> example **
> and by that you dont understand my op post point :
> (what is the energy of a single photon for me
> and what you are dealing in YOUR example
> so you contradicted nothing of my op assertion !!!
> and probably do not relamber or understand about what
> i am dealing with .

I told you these questions were off-topic in this thread. That's why I was
asking them in the other thread, where they were on-topic.

But YOU demanded that I ask these questions here, and said you would
answer them here.

So, I asked them here.

And I see that you refuse to answer them here too.

You knew what the questions were - I'd already asked them. You said to ask
them here. You said you would answer them here. Now, you refuse to answer
them here. Conclusion: you lied.

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 11, 7:23 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 9:22 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 9:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 8:27 am, Timo Nieminen
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > it is hf /c > We have hf = 4.0e-19J. (Note that this _isn't_ at all close to the 1J
> > > energy of the pulse!)
>
> > > According to the usual theory (Umov, Poynting, relativity, and
> > > experiment agree), we have momentum
>
> > > p = E/c = 3.3e-9 N.s
>
> > > According to your answer,
>
> > > p = hf/c = 1.3e-27 N.s,
>
> > > which disagrees with experiment (and the previous result) by _many_
> > > orders of magnitude.
> > > -----------------------------------
> > ==============================
> > but you didnt read my op post !!!
>
> > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ***MINIMUM PHOTON ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON **
>
> I wasn't. I never said that I was. In the previous thread where you
> started talking about this stuff, we weren't talking about single photons,
> either - 1kg of photons in a box is not a single photon.

>-------------------
but look at the op post
it is about the energy of the single photon!!

> > AND WHILE YOU TOOK A PULSE OF LIGHT
> > OF A MUCH BIGGER ENERGY
> > YOU DDINT TELL US
> > HOW ANY SINGLE MINIMAL PHOTONS YOU  HAVE THERE  in your example !!!
> > again
> > you didnt tell  us ** how many  single photons are in your specific
> > example **
> > and by that you dont understand my op post point  :
> > (what is the energy of a single photon  for me
> > and what  you are dealing in  YOUR example
> > so you contradicted nothing of my op  assertion !!!
> > and probably do not  relamber   or understand about what
> > i am dealing with .
>
> I told you these questions were off-topic in this thread. That's why I was
> asking them in the other thread, where they were on-topic.

------------------
that is the problem
you do not understand how it is on topic
----------------

>
> But YOU demanded that I ask these questions here, and said you would
> answer them here.

> --------------
yes i started to answer but you dont understand that i started to
answer !!

because my answer is unprecedented in nay book
it is an historic inoavtion of mine !!
you will not find for instance my above formula
i any current book
can you
or is it my innovation ??
-----------
so let me tell you the next associated innovation of mine
at my next step of the above formula
i suggested (and it is recorded more than a yeare before )
so in my nest step i suggested to take as the above n
as
(listen carefully )
the scalar part of the Planck time !!
which is
5.38 exp -44 Joule !!!
there are not names for that figure figures
not even in billions
and while you multiply it by hf
you get something like

exp -80 Joule !!
do you get how small it is
and why people consider it practically as zero
BUT IT IS NOT ZERO IN PRINCIPLE !!!

so you cant tel us waht is thenumber of single photons in your 'pulse
of light ''
and we cant discuss it quantitatively !!
but only we do can discuss it onmly
QUALITATIVELY !!
AND MIND YOU
EVEN DISCUSSING IT 'ONLY QUALITATIVELY
SO
WE CAN MAKE A GEAR ADVANCE IN SCIENCE

> And I see that you refuse to answer them here too.
>
> You knew what the questions were

i know what you do not know
that your questions are dead by arrival !!

because
you dont know waht happns to a lulse as you say
thjat is composed of an unknown of single photons
and i wail tell you
tHe mass
tHE momentum
the energy
of an Unknown NUMBER OF SINGLE PHOTONS
and more

IF YOU DON T KNOW ** HOW AND WHAT HAPPENS
TO A HUGE UNKNOWN NUMBER OF SINGLE PHOTONS
WHILE LEAVING FRAME 1
AND GWETTING TO FRAME 2 !!!
our quantitative calculatin is meaning nothing
now
i suggest to deal with it first

[Y.Porat]

> ----------------------
BTW something is sabotaging my answers
it went off
before i type send !!!
-----
so my suggestion about the above
is to start dealing with it
first QUALITATIVELY !!

AND IT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO MAKE HISTORIC ADVANCE IN PHYSICS !!

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 11, 6:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:23 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ***MINIMUM PHOTON ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON **
>
> > I wasn't. I never said that I was. In the previous thread where you
> > started talking about this stuff, we weren't talking about single photons,
> > either - 1kg of photons in a box is not a single photon.
> >-------------------
>
> but look at the op post
> it is about the energy of the single photon!!

So? That doesn't have anything at all to do with my questions. I'm
only asking them here because you _demanded_ that I ask them here,
_refused_ to ask them in the original thread where they were on-topic,

and said you would answer them here.

> > But YOU demanded that I ask these questions here, and said you would
> > answer them here.
> > --------------
>
> yes i started to answer but you dont understand that i      started to
> answer !!

OK, then answer the questions!

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 11, 11:23 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 6:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 7:23 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ***MINIMUM PHOTON ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON **
>
> > > I wasn't. I never said that I was. In the previous thread where you
> > > started talking about this stuff, we weren't talking about single photons,
> > > either - 1kg of photons in a box is not a single photon.
> > >-------------------
>
> > but look at the op post
> > it is about the energy of the single photon!!
>
> So? That doesn't have anything at all to do with my questions. I'm

====================================
----------------
i can t help if you are an idiot !!

can someone explain to Timo
what happens to a stream of a huge procession of single photons
(moving one after the other!! )
while they enter a secondary frame that makes
red shift ---

ie
***running with a given velocity towards the original frame

----------------
now since we do not know how many single photons
are taking place
i suggested to dIscuss it first QUANTITATIVELY
which is not worthless for itself

and only later we could suggest if we will assume
my above n as
about hf times n
as about exp-80 Joules !!

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------

[Y.Porat]

and in addition to the above
it depends on **how long that 'pulse ' of his took place ***!!

he still does not understand that it is time dependent

we can do it only
if the whole process is going on nonstop !!
2
how did he measured (AS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT) that pulse in
HIS SECONDARY FRAME ??

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------!

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 11, 9:14 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 11:23 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 6:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 7:23 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ***MINIMUM PHOTON ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON **
>
> > > > I wasn't. I never said that I was. In the previous thread where you
> > > > started talking about this stuff, we weren't talking about single photons,
> > > > either - 1kg of photons in a box is not a single photon.
> > > >-------------------
>
> > > but look at the op post
> > > it is about the energy of the single photon!!
>
> > So? That doesn't have anything at all to do with my questions.

[restored]

I'm only asking them here because you _demanded_ that I ask them here,
_refused_ to ask them in the original thread where they were on-topic,
and said you would answer them here.

> i can t help if you are an idiot !!

So, rather than answering the questions which YOU said YOU would
answer if I asked them in this thread as YOU demanded, you hurl
insults and REFUSE to answer! Can't you do what YOU said you would do?
Nothing from you but lies so far. Why can't you behave like a decent
human being? Are you a psychopath?

Just a simple question, repeated below: do you agree or disagree? Are
you afraid to say even that?

[Y.Porat]

-------------------
1 sorrty typo a sied that
red shify osby a running towards
but it should be runing away
anyway the problem is similar

2
waht is you answer tothat?
i claim that you cant answer rightly your own question
3
i would like what other readers
answr about yur question
4
and i hope that your test
can only be in a nonstop process
and not as a momentary very short pule ?
right ??
5
how did you masured your data
as experimental data
in your secondary frame
6
you see that my ansser is that you cant answer it properly
7
one of my new golden rule of physics
is
eenrgy is mass in movement
so
if Energy is conserved

then mass as well must be conserved
and bTW ipeovwed it many ways
that mass is conserved
and that thephoton has
conserved mass in all frames !!
8
again i would like what other readers
think about your questions
fro me (as is ) it is not answerable !

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

Can't you read? I give _my_ answers (to the question of what the
"mass" of the pulses is, according to YOUR definition of mass, as far
as you've been willing to define it) above, in (i)-(iii). I'm asking
if you agree or disagree with my answers. Can't you understand plain
English?

> 3
> i would like what other readers
> answr about  yur question

So, no answers, just further evasions and lies. You knew what the
questions were before you told me to ask them there in this thread
where you would answer them - I'd already asked them, and you'd
refused to answer in the original thread. You said to ask them here.

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 11, 10:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > For the 3 cases of the original 500nm pulse, and the redshifted and
> > blueshifted pulses, we have, according to your usage of "mass", 3
> > different masses:
>
> > (i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2
>
> > (ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
>
> > (iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2
>
> > Do you agree or disagree?
>
> > If you disagree, what do you say that the "masses" are?

> again  i would like what other  readers
> think about   your questions
> fro me (as is ) it is not answerable !

Not answerable? There are three numbers above, which are the "masses"
of the pulses, according to your definition of "mass", calculated
straight from the energy of the pulse using E/c^2, according to your
definition. Do you agree or not? How can it be not answerable?

[eric gisse]

Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in news:662b23d7-5f2a-400f-
a479-baf...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

I firmly believe that when a person gets to this point, it is time to get
on an ice floe and go out to sea.

[Y.Porat]

--------------
imbecile !!
the photon that entered the secondary frame
is not the same photon'' that was emitted by the original frame
got it disturbed retarded halfwit incurable parrot !!!
to explain to you something is as to explain it to the wall !!
NEXT !! for real advance in physics !!
Y.Porat
-----------------

[Y.Porat]

-----------------
Go discuss with people of your kind like
Erick Schaise ...
anyway
let other cleaver honest serious responsible people to got in and
tell their
understanding of the issue
2
BTW
you dint tell us what is your day job
it seems that you have a good reason to hide it

(is iot the same day job as of the little cripple Eric Schaise ?? )

keep well Y.Porat
NEXT !!
------------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

You said you would answer if I asked the question here, and you
didn't. Certainly, you lied. Can't you even try to behave like a
decent human being?

If other people don't immediately answer your questions, you accuse
them of being afraid, say that they don't behave like decent beings
would. When other people ask you questions, you lie and evade, and
then promise that you'll answer if they ask the questions where you
demand that they ask them. And then you don't answer them. Are you
afraid? Are you something other than a decent human being? What kind
of filth are you?

> you dint tell    us  what is your day job
> it seems  that you have  a good reason to  hide it

I did tell you. You asked, and I answered. Why are you lying that I
didn't answer? Are you a psychopath? A liar, certainly!

The simple question you've been refusing to answer - and lying in the
process - was just:

[Y.Porat]

-----------------
last trial with you :

i say that your questions are NONSTARTER QUESTIONS


so what is your answers
*** to your own questions*** ?
to show me that i am wrong

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

I can't answer as to whether or not YOU *agree* or *disagree* with me.
What I have given you, in plain English, is the "masses", according to
your theory, for the pulses in the three cases:

For the 3 cases of the original 500nm pulse, and the redshifted and
blueshifted pulses, we have, according to your usage of "mass", 3
different masses:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2

(ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2

(iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2

I'm not even asking to you to calculate these (having already made the
mistake of asking you that, and you making a proper dog's breakfast of
it). I'm only asking you if you agree or disagree with these. These
results are straight from using "mass" = E/c^2, according to your
definition. Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree, what do you say that the "masses" are?

You said you would answer - you already knew what the questions were
before you said you would answer - and you haven't yet. All you do is
lie and evade. Don't you have any honesty? Can't you even try to
behave like a decent human being? Are you a psychopath?

[Y.Porat]

> ------------------------------------

> (i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2

===============================
how could you use my formula??

do you mean the op formula ??

THAT FORMULA IS NOT A QUALITATIVE FORMULA

IT IS A QUANTITATIVE FORMULA !!


so you still cant make any quantitative calculation
' according to me !!!

and after that comes my NEXT question:

DO YOU AGREE With THAT FORMULA
(as a qualitative formula ???
(AND as a first stage of common base discussion ?)

--- OR NOT

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

It's simple. Your formula for "mass" is E/c^2. If working in SI units,
you take the energy in joules (in this case, 1J), and divide by c^2,
where c=3e8m/s.

Do you agree with the result?

> do you mean  the   op formula ??
>
> THAT FORMULA IS NOT A QUALITATIVE  FORMULA
>
> IT IS A QUANTITATIVE FORMULA !!
>
> so you still cant make any quantitative calculation
> ' according to me !!!

Why not? Why can't we take 1J (the quantitative energy of the pulse)
and divide by c^2 (approx 9e16m^2/s^2), and get a quantitative result?
What's the value of "mass" = E/c^2 if we can't divide the quantitative
value of E by c^2, and get a quantitative value for the "mass"?

> > (ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
>
> > (iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2
>
> > I'm not even asking to you to calculate these (having already made the
> > mistake of asking you that, and you making a proper dog's breakfast of
> > it). I'm only asking you if you agree or disagree with these. These
> > results are straight from using "mass" = E/c^2, according to your
> > definition. Do you agree or disagree?
>
> > If you disagree, what do you say that the "masses" are?
>
> > You said you would answer - you already knew what the questions were
> > before you said you would answer - and you haven't yet. All you do is
> > lie and evade. Don't you have any honesty? Can't you even try to
> > behave like a decent human being? Are you a psychopath?

So, no answers, despite your _repeated_ claims that you would answer.
Just lies and evasions, as usual from you. If other people don't

[Y.Porat]

------------------
energy of what photon ??

>
> Do you agree with the result?

> ----------
it is enrgy of a huge** unknown number of photons !!

> > do you mean  the   op formula ??
>
> > THAT FORMULA IS NOT A QUALITATIVE  FORMULA
>
> > IT IS A QUANTITATIVE FORMULA !!
>
> > so you still cant make any quantitative calculation
> > ' according to me !!!
>
> Why not? Why can't we take 1J (the quantitative energy of the pulse)
> and divide by c^2 (approx 9e16m^2/s^2), and get a quantitative result?

--------------
quantitative result of a huge unknown nomber of single photons !!!
------------

> What's the value of "mass" = E/c^2 if we can't divide the quantitative
> value of E by c^2, and get a quantitative value for the "mass"?

> -------------
you canget mass
but
the mass of how many single photons ??
---------

> >
> > > (ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
>
> > > (iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2
>
> > > I'm not even asking to you to calculate these (having already made the
> > > mistake of asking you that, and you making a proper dog's breakfast of
> > > it). I'm only asking you if you agree or disagree with these. These
> > > results are straight from using "mass" = E/c^2, according to your
> > > definition. Do you agree or disagree?

>-------------------------
the mass of how many single photons ??

-------------

> > > If you disagree, what do you say that the "masses" are?
>

>

> So, no answers, despite your _repeated_ claims that you would answer.
> Just lies and evasions, as usual from you. If other people don't
> immediately answer your questions, you accuse them of being afraid,
> say that they don't behave like decent beings would. When other people
> ask you questions, you lie and evade, and then promise that you'll
> answer if they ask the questions where you demand that they ask them.
> And then you don't answer them. Are you afraid? Are you something
> other than a decent human being? What kind of filth are you?

-----------------
little piggy
before opening your stupid mouth
you have to understand my innovation
you was calculating figures of
red and blue shift light
right ??
so
IT MEANS YOU ARE DEALING WITH
TWO FRAMES !!
so how can anidiot like you
know that
listen careful (idiot blockhead
you have not an idea waht is a phootn
2
waht is a single phootn
3
wHat happens to a real photon while it enteres
THE SECONDARY FRAME
GOT IT GANDPA ??
while in addition i ** didn t yet dealt above and explained
what (according to me NOT TO YOU !!
and other parrots ) -happens to a real photon while entering
a secondary MOVING frame
so ***we (a tleast me)are not yet in
red or blue shift business !
(it will come only later
at my second stage !!)
my understanding of red and blue shift
is not your old parroting understanding

so where from you took your story
AND CALCULATIONS ...
and relate them to me ??
about
red and blue shift ???

(i am talking about some new physics
not about old physics that will be explained by me later!!)
actually i gave more than hints about it in past

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 12, 8:15 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> so where from you took your story
> AND CALCULATIONS ...
> and relate them to me ??
> about
> red and blue shift ???

OK, so back to the beginning then! Take a 1J pulse of light,
wavelength 500nm.

In a coordinate system moving (relative to the original coordinate
system) in the same direction as the pulse, at 3e7m/s, the pulse will
be redshifted.

That's a speed of about 10% of the speed of the pulse, so the
wavelength will increase by about 10%.

So, the redshifted wavelength will be about 550nm.

Agree or disagree? (No evasions! Just answer, directly and clearly!)

In a coordinate system moving (relative to the original coordinate
system) in the opposite direction to the pulse, at 3e7m/s, the pulse
will be blueshifted.

That's a speed of about 10% of the speed of the pulse, so the
wavelength will decrease by about 10%.

So, the blueshifted wavelength will be about 450nm.

Agree or disagree? (No evasions! Just answer, directly and clearly!)

That is, do you agree that we have:

(i) 500nm

(ii) 550nm

(iii) 450nm

?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 12, 12:27 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:15 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > so where from you took your story
> > AND CALCULATIONS ...
> > and relate them to me ??
> > about
> > red and blue shift ???
>
> OK, so back to the beginning then! Take a 1J pulse of light,
> wavelength 500nm.
>
> In a coordinate system moving (relative to the original coordinate
> system) in the same direction as the pulse, at 3e7m/s, the pulse will
> be redshifted.
>
> That's a speed of about 10% of the speed of the pulse, so the
> wavelength will increase by about 10%.

> --------------
according to SR ok i trust yor calculation
-------------

> So, the redshifted wavelength will be about 550nm.


>
> Agree or disagree?

ok as abobe i trust your calculations

(No evasions! Just answer, directly and clearly!)
>
> In a coordinate system moving (relative to the original coordinate
> system) in the opposite direction to the pulse, at 3e7m/s, the pulse
> will be blueshifted.
>
> That's a speed of about 10% of the speed of the pulse, so the
> wavelength will decrease by about 10%.
>
> So, the blueshifted wavelength will be about 450nm.
>
> Agree or disagree? (No evasions! Just answer, directly and clearly!)

as above

>
> That is, do you agree that we have:
>
> (i) 500nm
>
> (ii) 550nm
>
> (iii) 450nm
>

---------------------



i trust you calculations
sooooooo ????!!!

we are dealing with mass of the single photon remember ???

now how many single photons do you have
in your secondary frame
and what is their mass
compared to the original ??
is it connserved o r not ??!!
2
is the number of single photons in frame 1
the same as in frame 2 ???!!
i guess you was insinuating about
'''mass inflation or deflation of '''the tested photons ''
isnt it so ?? (:-)

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------

[Timo Nieminen]

So, do agree that the energies of the pulse in the 3 coordinate
systems are, to reasonable accuracy:

(i) 500nm: 1J

(ii) 550nm: 0.9J

(iii) 450nm: 1.1J

?

> we are dealing with mass of the single photon remember ???

No, we are not. I was asking about the "mass" (according to your
definition) of 1J of photons.

[Y.Porat]

> -------------------
i told you idiot that you cant measure** a pulse
yo can meaure only a constant stream of photons
especially while it has to pass two frames

> (i) 500nm: 1J
>
> (ii) 550nm: 0.9J
>
> (iii) 450nm: 1.1J
>
> ?

>-----------------
if it is a stream than yes we van meaure its wave length
and
in case of ered shift the wave length becomes longer in the seconf
frame
and i acase of blue shift the wave length
at the second frame becomes shorther
SO OOOOO
so what next ???
how and why that change done ??
------------------

> > we are dealing with mass of the single photon remember ???
>
> No, we are not. I was asking about the "mass" (according to your
> definition) of 1J of photons.

==============================
--------------------------
The mass of THE SINGLE photon
IS ALWAYS CONSTANT !!!

for you (but not for me !!) -- NO MATTER IN WHAT FRAME ! you thing
that it is the same ''photon''
''that changed it s mass and energy''''
BUT NOT FOR ME !!
BECAUSE :
THE E=hf
is not the formula of a single photon !!
it is a huge bundle of single photons
got it once and for all ???

WHILE** YOU** GO ON AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND CONSIDER hf AS ENERGY OF A SINGLE- PHOTON EVEN IF THE f CHANGED
AND YOU ARE WRONG WITH THAT

(while i calm that while f changed.
while entered a secondary moving frame) -
it is not anymore the same'' photon'' as before that change
therefore NOT the same photon Energy !!AND NOT THE SAME MASS AS THE
ORIGINAL MASS !

SO
what is **your** explanation to that change
in f , in energy and momentum and mass ??

(as different from my explanation for it )
--------------------

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

So, answer the question. No lies or evasions, please. Do you agree or
not? Yes or no?

Are you seriously trying to claim that the energy of a pulse of light
can't be measured?

Do you agree or disagree that the energies of the pulse in the 3
coordinate systems are:

[Y.Porat]

> ==============

> So, answer the question. No lies or evasions, please. Do you agree or
> not? Yes or no?

I( (your humble servant ....!) .. AGREE WITH ALL THAT YOU
SAID !!!

SO NOW ???
JUST COME ON AND TELL US

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOUR CONCLUSIONS FROM YOUR above CALCULATIONS ??!!

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------

>
> Are you seriously trying to claim that the energy of a pulse of light

=============================
do you agree that the amount of energy emitted
IS TIME DEPENDENT !!.....
=============================
-----------------

[Timo Nieminen]

So, you say that the "mass" is E/c^2, so the "masses" of the pulse in
the three coordinate systems are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2

(ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2

(iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2

Agree or disagree? No lies or evasions, please. Do you agree or not?
Yes or no?

[Y.Porat]

--------------------
agree agree agree agree agree
now what the hell is next !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

[Y.Porat]

-------------------
agree agree agree!!
what next ??

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

[Y.Porat]

can anyone help Timo
with some cleaver conclusions
out of his examples and calculations???

it seems that he never thought about
the next steps AND CONCLUSIONS .

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------

[Timo Nieminen]

These are different, yes? Three different values for the "mass". It's
the _same_ pulse of light in all 3 cases; we're just using 3 different
coordinate systems.

I would say that since the value for the "mass" depends on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system, the "mass" (according to your
definition of "mass") isn't a fundamental property of things.

What do you say? Is "mass" a fundamental property? If it is, why would
it depend on our choice of coordinate system?

The modern definition of "mass" in physics (which isn't the same as
your definition) has the advantage of being independent of our choice
of coordinate system.

[Y.Porat]

-----------
waht i say is that
MASS IS CONSERVED !!
NO MATTER IN WHAT FRAME!!
2
your basic assumptions are wrong!!
ie your assumption that the photon that
left frame 1
and entered frame 2
''IS THE SAME PHOTON
WHILE YOU HAVE NO PROVE FOR THAT!!
And it is A FATEL WRONG ASSUMPTION!!

now
can you guess how can we explain it ??
(just get out of the terrible harmful box ''...)

BTW
i am 73 and just a few days ago had an Hernial operation (:-)
but my mind is still working live and kicking ...(unconventionally )

how old are you ??

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

You're not answering the questions, as you said you would. You
demanded that I ask them here, and said you would answer them if I
asked them here, and you're not answering them. Can't you do what you
said you'd do?

> 2
> your basic assumptions are wrong!!

You agreed that the assumptions were all correct!

We had:

(a) The wavelengths of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3
different coordinate systems, are (i) 500nm, (ii) 550nm, (iii) 450nm.

You already agreed with this. It follows directly from the Doppler
shift. There is nothing at all mysterious in the wavelength having
different values in the 3 different coordinate systems.

(b) The energies of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J, (ii) 0.9J, (iii) 1.1J.

You already agreed with this. There is nothing at all mysterious in
the energy having different values in the 3 different coordinate
systems; compare with, for example, an arrow with, as seen in
coordinate system A, moving at 45m/s and having kinetic energy of
100J, and seen in coordinate system B moving at 5m/s relative to A in
the same direction as the arrow, the arrow having a speed of 40m/s and
KE=80J, and in C, moving at 5m/s in the opposite direction, the arrow
having speed of 50m/s and KE=125J.

(c) According to your definition of "mass", we have "mass" = E/c^2.
You implied that this is how you can calculate "mass" according to
your definition, and I asked you if this was correct, and you agreed.

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed
earlier were all correct, do you now disagree with? Or does ordinary
arithmetic no longer apply when calculating "mass"?

"MASS IS CONSERVED !! NO MATTER IN WHAT FRAME!!" is irrelevant. This
has nothing to do with conservation of mass. Nothing is changing about
the pulse in any of the 3 coordinate systems - the wavelength, energy,
and "mass" of the pulse is CONSTANT, in each of the coordinate

systems.

I would say that since the value for the "mass" depends on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system, the "mass" (according to your
definition of "mass") isn't a fundamental property of things.

What do you say? Is "mass" a fundamental property? If it is, why would
it depend on our choice of coordinate system?

The modern definition of "mass" in physics (which isn't the same as
your definition) has the advantage of being independent of our choice
of coordinate system.

> ie your  assumption that the photon that
> left frame 1
> and entered frame 2
> ''IS THE SAME PHOTON
> WHILE YOU HAVE NO PROVE FOR THAT!!
> And it is A FATEL WRONG ASSUMPTION!!

No such assumption was made. Nothing was assumed about photons at all;
this is the purely classical case. Also, nothing "left frame 1 and
entered frame 2"! The pulse is simply looked at in 3 different
coordinate systems at the same time. The pulse is "in" all 3
coordinate systems, all the time. It doesn't "leave" one and "enter"
another one. How could it possibly do such a thing?

So, your objections are irrelevant and/or nonsense. (Objections to
WHAT? You refused to even say if you agreed or disagreed with the
result in (d) above!) Answer the questions, like you said you would.
Don't avoid them and introduce irrelevant diversions! (And I won't
answer any more irrelevant personal questions from you, given your
persistent display of psychopathic rudeness and dishonesty.)

[PD]

On 11/17/2011 1:57 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:11 pm, "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> You're not answering the questions, as you said you would. You
> demanded that I ask them here, and said you would answer them if I
> asked them here, and you're not answering them. Can't you do what you
> said you'd do?
>

No, of course not. He does not want to show his hand, because he does
not want to be forced into acknowledging that he doesn't know what he's
doing. You are focusing on simple things he should be able to do and
simple concepts he should know, and he's fully aware that he can't and
he doesn't. Instead of focusing on those things, he wants to keep
attention on *qualitative* statements and on the *novelty* of those
things -- because, you see, this is something he can do: make
qualitative statements that no one else has made before (or at least
ones that he isn't aware that someone else has made). He wants credit
for something he can do, and does not want to be criticized for that
which he cannot do.

Wisdom, which normally comes in old age, would say to try to get that
credit in an area where you have some talent and experience, and not try
to get that in an area where you have deep incompetence and ignorance.

The problem for Porat is that in the areas where he does have some
talent and experience he tastes no glory, and so he seeks credit for
something -- anything -- in an area where he senses glory. That shows
that he is more of a foolish old man than a wise old man, but so be it.

It's reminiscent of the man who is searching for something under a
streetlight. Another man approaches and asks, "What are you looking
for?" "My wallet," the first man says, "I dropped it." "I don't see it
either," says the second man, "Where did you drop it?" "Over there in
the alley," says the first man. "Why on earth are you looking for it
clear over by the street, then??" "Because the light is better over here."

[Y.Porat]

-------------------
again and again wrong BASIC ASSUMPTIONS !!
which is so typical to parroting science !!

your basic a ssunption that you can see
THE SAME PHOTON IN TWO OR THREE FRAMES
IS WRONG !!

you forgot (or never knew )
THAT WHILE YOU DETECT OR MEASURE
A PHOTON ANYWHERE
*IT I S immediately DEAD AND DOES NOT EXIST ANY MORE *
so it cant be in 3 different places
iow
you detect in 3 frames (that move different !!--
***3 DIFFERENT PHOTONS**
AGAIN
3(different ) NOT THE SAME ONE !!

dont let the idiot parrot crook PD
boggle your balls
(he is a criminal against mankind !!
not less !! )

or else you will remain the same parrot as him
and will not understand why 'most of 'modern science' is stuck in
the mud for so long !! science
2
see my historic formula at the op post
it is easily proven experimentally !!

(that the fucker PD that innovated nothing in his life is so jealous
about ) because he is a lawyer crook not a **decent** physicist )

think about it
try to understand its revolutionary meaning
and get wiser !!!
3
you didn t answer
how old you are ??....
while i told you my age
( the crook demagogue PD claims that getting older is a disadvantage
(:-)

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

So, again you refuse to answer. Why? You said that if I asked these
questions here you would answer them. I'd already asked the questions,
so you knew what they were when you promised answers. But you don't
deliver. Such dishonesty!

A simple "yes" or "no" will do for a start.

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed earlier were all
correct, do you now disagree with?

> your basic a ssunption that you can see
> THE SAME PHOTON IN TWO OR THREE FRAMES
> IS WRONG !!

No, this isn't a basic assumption here at all. We're not talking about
a single photon. How many photons in a 1J pulse at 500nm? Calculate,
even using the standard E=hf photon (rather than your "real single
photon"), and you will see that it is rather more than one. Even more
more than one using your "real single photon".

> you didn t answer
> how old you   are ??....
> while i told you  my age
> ( the crook  demagogue PD claims that getting older is a disadvantage
> (:-)

As I said, "I won't answer any more irrelevant personal questions from

you, given your persistent display of psychopathic rudeness and
dishonesty."

I don't care how old you are. I do care about your behaviour, and
mostly I see lies, abuse, rudeness, and general dishonesty.

For example, you _demanded_ that I ask these questions here, in this
thread, and you said you would answer them, and, mostly, you refuse to
answer them. Simple dishonesty. Why don't you behave like a decent
human being?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 18, 12:20 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wr > more

than one using your "real single photon".
>
> > you didn t answer
> > how old you   are ??....
> > while i told you  my age
> > ( the crook  demagogue PD claims that getting older is a disadvantage
> > (:-)
>
> As I said, "I won't answer any more irrelevant personal questions from
> you, given your persistent display of psychopathic rudeness and
> dishonesty."
>
> I don't care how old you are. I do care about your behaviour, and
> mostly I see lies, abuse, rudeness, and general dishonesty.
>
> For example, you _demanded_ that I ask these questions here, in this
> thread, and you said you would answer them, and, mostly, you refuse to
> answer them. Simple dishonesty. Why don't you behave like a decent
> human being?

-----------------
=================================
imbecile donkey
you keep on demending me to answer your questions like an idiot
childish psychopath!

i am answering your questions AND HOW !!
but you are too dumb to understand that
** i am answering ** but completely a diffrent way that is in your''
la la land ''!! :

E= hf
i s not the formula for a single photon!!
it is a hug bunch of single photons
so idiot
which among those billions of photons
in that hf - you are talking about ??!!
2
you cant measure or even detect a real single photon twice !!
got it donkey
so (and !!) you cant measure **the same photon** in more than one
frame !!!
and you keep on talking about '''the same photon '''''
as if it was changing its mass
or energy or momentum in two or more frames

the real single phopton energy is
(listen careful parrot)
is about EXP -80 Joule !
do you get what does it means ???

BTW
my patience for idiots in general and you you as well is getting
exhausted
if that is your tactics then go discuss with
PD an d his crook gangsters

3
another BTW
your refusal to tell me how old are you smells bad !!
as if you have something to hide
honest people have nothing to hide

Y.Porat
---------------------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 18, 8:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:20 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wr > more
> than one using your "real single photon".
>
> > > you didn t answer
> > > how old you   are ??....
> > > while i told you  my age
> > > ( the crook  demagogue PD claims that getting older is a disadvantage
> > > (:-)
>
> > As I said, "I won't answer any more irrelevant personal questions from
> > you, given your persistent display of psychopathic rudeness and
> > dishonesty."
>
> > I don't care how old you are. I do care about your behaviour, and
> > mostly I see lies, abuse, rudeness, and general dishonesty.
>
> > For example, you _demanded_ that I ask these questions here, in this
> > thread, and you said you would answer them, and, mostly, you refuse to
> > answer them. Simple dishonesty. Why don't you behave like a decent
> > human being?
>
> -----------------
> =================================
> imbecile donkey
> you keep on demending  me to answer your questions like an  idiot
> childish psychopath!

You _asked_ me to ask you those questions here, and said you would
answer them. You said:

> just go to my thread:
>
> "E minimum =hf times n
> while
>
> 0> n <<<<<1.0000
> and you will get the most answers to your questions

and

> Please go to my new thread :
> ---------
> '''E minimum = hf times n
> while
> 0 > n >>>>> 1.0000'''''
> ----------
> and ask me there

So I asked you here, like you _asked me to_. And now, you're back to
your psychopathic rudeness, complaining that I'm asking you questions
in this thread, when YOU'RE the one who asked me to do so.

> i am answering your questions AND HOW !!
> but you  are too dumb to  understand that
> ** i am answering ** but completely a diffrent way that is in your''
> la la land ''!! :

No, you aren't answering. Why? You said that if I asked these

questions here you would answer them. I'd already asked the questions,
so you knew what they were when you promised answers. But you don't
deliver. Such dishonesty!

A simple "yes" or "no" will do for a start.

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed earlier were all
correct, do you now disagree with?

> another BTW
> your refusal to tell  me how old are you smells bad !!
> as if you have something to  hide
> honest people have nothing to hide

What do you have to hide? You're the one who's refusing to answer
questions that you said you would answer. Not only are you refusing to
answer, but you lied about it, too. Why can't you behave like a decent
human being?

[Y.Porat]

-----------------
can someone explain to that retard Psychopath :
what is a'' pulse'' for you parrot?

pulls of water ? of wind?
of electricity i a cable ??

we are dealing with photons as can be seen
at the op post
we are talking about photon energy right ??

so that
hf1
is not the same photon as
hf2 ??

2
that he cant measure or even detect
**the same photon** twice
and certainly not in two frames
so
if it is not the same photon
what is his point ('story' ??)
he is comparing one sac of potato
to 2 sacs of potato .....on another scale

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

If honest people have nothing to hide, and you said you would answer
these questions here, why do you refuse to answer?

you aren't answering. Why? You said that if I asked these
questions here you would answer them. I'd already asked the questions,
so you knew what they were when you promised answers. But you don't
deliver. Such dishonesty!

A simple "yes" or "no" will do for a start.

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed earlier were all
correct, do you now disagree with?

Why are you refusing to clearly answer whether or not you agree with
the above calculation? If you don't agree, say "no".

You agreed with the pulse energies being different in the 3 different
coordinate systems; you agreed that, according to your definition of
"mass", "mass" = E/c^2. Do you agree with the "masses" above? Yes or
no?

[Y.Porat]

--------------
last attept with that psycho :
(though we have already beed in that before)

listen carefully disturbed idiot

suppose that i am an idiot and didnt understand
and ** unable** because of my stupidity or unable to understand your
questions
so

WHAT ARE YOUR ANSWER TO YOUR own QUESTIONS ??
2
(NOT LEAST)
WHAT IS YOUR 'POINT' THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE --/ (teach us )
IN BRINGING YOUR QUESTIONS
**AT ANY LOCATION !!-(not only here )

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------

[PD]

On 11/17/2011 11:05 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:57 pm, Timo Nieminen<t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

>
> -------------------
> again and again wrong BASIC ASSUMPTIONS !!
> which is so typical to parroting science !!
>
> your basic a ssunption that you can see
> THE SAME PHOTON IN TWO OR THREE FRAMES
> IS WRONG !!
>
> you forgot (or never knew )
> THAT WHILE YOU DETECT OR MEASURE
> A PHOTON ANYWHERE
> *IT I S immediately DEAD AND DOES NOT EXIST ANY MORE *
> so it cant be in 3 different places

Different frames are not different places, Porat.
One place, three reference frames.
Do you know what a reference frame is?

[Y.Porat]

---------------------------
your hatred is blinding you !
did i say different places??
ok
even different places
you cant measure the **SAME** PHOTON
in different places !!!
do you agree with that ??

so
not to speak about places that are in relative motion !!
more than sure that you cant do it !!
so
what does it means for a semi intelligent person ??
so hint :
if you inspight that **did manage** to measure something
(:-)..... ??
what is that mean about that 'something ??

Y.Porat
-----------------

[PD]

On 11/18/2011 8:19 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:52 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2011 11:05 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 9:57 pm, Timo Nieminen<t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> -------------------
>>> again and again wrong BASIC ASSUMPTIONS !!
>>> which is so typical to parroting science !!
>>
>>> your basic a ssunption that you can see
>>> THE SAME PHOTON IN TWO OR THREE FRAMES
>>> IS WRONG !!
>>
>>> you forgot (or never knew )
>>> THAT WHILE YOU DETECT OR MEASURE
>>> A PHOTON ANYWHERE
>>> *IT I S immediately DEAD AND DOES NOT EXIST ANY MORE *
>>> so it cant be in 3 different places
>>
>> Different frames are not different places, Porat.
>> One place, three reference frames.
>> Do you know what a reference frame is?
>
> ---------------------------
> your hatred is blinding you !
> did i say different places??

Yes, you did.

> ok
> even different places
> you cant measure the **SAME** PHOTON
> in different places !!!

No one is saying you do that. But meausuring the same photon in
different frames, yes.
Different frames are not different places. Didn't I just say that?

> do you agree with that ??
>
> so
> not to speak about places that are in relative motion !!
> more than sure that you cant do it !!
> so
> what does it means for a semi intelligent person ??

A semi-intelligent person will look up what a reference frame MEANS, not
try to guess that it means a place.

[Timo Nieminen]

So, no answer to a simple "yes"/"no" question - just evasions and
insults. If honest people have nothing to hide, and you said you would
answer these questions here, why do you refuse to answer? You aren't

answering. Why? You said that if I asked these questions here you
would answer them. I'd already asked the questions, so you knew what
they were when you promised answers. But you don't deliver. Such

dishonesty! Why can't you behave like a decent human being?

> suppose that i am an idiot and didnt understand
> and ** unable** because of my stupidity  or  unable to understand your
> questions

It's possible. From your talk of photons leaving one reference frame
and entering another, you don't appear to understand what a reference
frame is; a difficulty when the question involves them.

I realised that my original asking of the question was too ambitious.
Thus, I've reduced it to simple step-by-step, mostly yes/no questions.

> so
>
> WHAT ARE   YOUR ANSWER TO YOUR  own QUESTIONS ??

Haven't you been reading the question AT ALL? For post after post,
I've been giving my answer. I've been asking if you agree or disagree
with it. One more time, here is _my_ answer, and the question to you:
do you agree or disagree with it?

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed earlier were all
correct, do you now disagree with?

Why are you refusing to clearly answer whether or not you agree with
the above calculation? If you don't agree, say "no".

You agreed with the pulse energies being different in the 3 different
coordinate systems; you agreed that, according to your definition of
"mass", "mass" = E/c^2. Do you agree with the "masses" above? Yes or
no?

> 2
> (NOT LEAST)
> WHAT IS YOUR 'POINT' THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE --/  (teach us )
> IN BRINGING YOUR QUESTIONS
> **AT ANY LOCATION !!-(not only here )

The first point is that if you want to jump into a thread and proclaim
that _your_ answer is right, and everybody else is wrong, you should
be able to support this with rational argument and evidence. (By
"you", I mean specifically YOU, Porat, because you jumped into a
thread and proclaimed that your answer is right, that you are the
Great Physics Messiah. But the Annointed One has refused to provide
rational argument and evidence, and further avoids answering questions
seeking any. But, in principle, this point applies to the generic
"you" as well.)

The 2nd point is a point about modern and obsolete definitions of
mass. You know, what was being talked about in the thread you graced
with by the presence of the Annointed One. What you joined in a
discussion about. You did know the topic of discussion when you joined
in, didn't you?

There are 1 or 2 points about photons that could be made, but only
usefully if point 2 above can get somewhere, which requires getting
past your psychopathic lies, evasions, abuse, and general dishonesty.
See, this is a carrot! Answer the questions, and we can talk about
photons!

[Y.Porat]

-------------------
imbecile moron pig !!!

you are a pig because you idiot crook want s to present me as one who
does not know what frames are !
now piggy
listen carefully moron parrot:

the single photon energy is about
exp-80 Joule
got it
anyway
see the historic op equation
can you claim
THAT THIS OP FORMULA IS WRONG ??!!

if not wrong

than hf is not a billiard ball that is created in frame 1
and entering to a relatively moving frame 2
as the same 'billiard ball'

even a crook like you learned **form me**
that hf is a huge stream of BASIC single
photons !! (of about exp-80 Joule!! )
the real basic single photon will never be detected or measured !!!
so
if say frame 2 is running away from frame 1
than
the stream of single photon that is constantly leaving frame 1

IS NOT THE SAME STREAM OF single PHOTONS THAT ENTERS FRAME 2 !!

and that is why **YOU *** are wrong by saying
that you can measure THE SAME PHOTON
BOTH THE SAME IN FRAME 1 AND FRAME 2
BECAUSE
TH E (stream of ) single PHOTON s IN FRAME 1
IS NOT THE(stream of single photons ) IN FRAME 2

AND IF THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
YOU CANT MEASURE THE TWO
AS THE SAME PHOTON !!IN TWO FRAMES
(not to mention that once you detect a photn
it becomes dead because of the very detection of it !!
the most you can do you could speak the most about
***SIMILAR*** STREAMS OF PHOTONS
got it shameless pig ??

a shameless pig parrot like you still didn t internalize the meaning
of my historic op formula !!!
or poses as if he dint understand it

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------

[Y.Porat]

BTW
why a pig crook like you
snipped the **sci.particle** that i initiated in my
op post
just another sign of a shameless pig !!
Y.P
---------------------------

[Y.Porat]

BTW
the shameless pig PD snipped
the sci.particle from my original list
and he knew well why he did it it was not accidental !!
...
he had good ' reasons'' for that ...
so here it is again in sci.particles as well

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------

[Y.Porat]

--------------------
you are not a partner for sane discussion !!
next !!
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

You ASKED me to ask you these questions here. You KNEW what the
questions were when you asked me to ask them here. You said you would
answer them if I asked them here.

You didn't. You refused to answer even simple yes/no questions. You
lied, attempted to change the topic, lied again, hurled insults, and
displayed an excessively high level of psychopathic rudeness. I think
it's quite clear that YOU are the one who isn't a partner for sane
discussion - you've done your best to avoid sane discussion.

You asked me to ask these questions, and said you would answer them.
Then you refuse. What kind of psychopath are you? Can't you behave

[Y.Porat]

------------------
idiot
all the answers to your questions are
in the title of this thread !!!

(provided you are intelligent enough !!)
that is why i ask your age ....

Y.P
------------------
---------------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

No, they aren't. Why don't you answer the question - simple yes/no
question - instead of such blatant lying? Do you get off on lying?

You said that if I asked these questions here you would answer them.
I'd already asked the questions,
so you knew what they were when you promised answers. But you don't
deliver. Such dishonesty!

Once again, here is the question. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed earlier were all
correct, do you now disagree with?

Why are you refusing to clearly answer whether or not you agree with
the above calculation? If you don't agree, say "no".

You agreed with the pulse energies being different in the 3 different
coordinate systems; you agreed that, according to your definition of
"mass", "mass" = E/c^2. Do you agree with the "masses" above? Yes or
no?

[Y.Porat]

-----------------------]
is it possible that you (in your real name )actually belong to the
PD
sabotage r Gang ??

next
Y.P
--------------------------------

[PD]

> than hf is not a billiard ball that is created in frame 1
> and entering to a relatively moving frame 2
> as the same 'billiard ball'

See? You don't know what a reference frame is.
Objects don't leave one reference frame and enter another.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Why don't you look up what a reference frame is first?

[PD]

On 11/18/2011 8:50 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 19, 4:36 am, "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> BTW
> the shameless pig PD snipped
> the sci.particle from my original list
> and he knew well why he did it it was not accidental !!
> ...
> he had good ' reasons'' for that ...

Yes, I did. I choose where I want *my* posts to go. If I think something
is irrelevant to that group, then I will remove that group when I
respond. I have absolutely no interest in your seething desire for
visibility as wide as you can muster. If you want more visibility, be
sure to include alt.theories.ridiculous and rec.arts.whoring.attention.
What are YOUR reasons for splattering yourself on so many newsgroups?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 19, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 8:50 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 4:36 am, "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > BTW
> > the shameless pig PD snipped
> >   the sci.particle from  my original list
> > and he knew well why he  did it  it was not accidental !!
> > ...
> > he had good ' reasons'' for that  ...
>
> Yes, I did. I choose where I want *my* posts to go. If I think something
> is irrelevant to that group, then I will remove that group when I
> respond. I have absolutely no interest in your seething desire for
> visibility as wide as you can muster. If you want more visibility, be
> sure to include alt.theories.ridiculous and rec.arts.whoring.attention.
> What are YOUR reasons for splattering yourself on so many newsgroups?
>
>

----------------

(:-)
so why did you entered my thread ??
i ddint invite you in (:-)
or may be you are a master of hypocrisy
and crookedness !!
did i ever innovated anything to you ??
if i am worth nothing to you
why dont you ignore me completely
and dont even start to read my nonsense ??
2
why did you got my book ??

there are some standards of formal respect

2
do agree with my op formula ??

3
do you think that E=hf and photons
has something to do with particles??
if yes
why to erase the ''particle'' ng ??
4
what is your big interest that my ideas
will be known as less as possible??
what is your authority to try and limit me as possible
while anyone who folLow this thread froM top to to bottom it is always
**you*
not me !!
why **START* with your 'patronizing lofty false baseless pose as
if you canbe my fucken teacher
while you can get and do get from me
on and on a few private lessons inbasi physics !!!
do you think (little shameless pig) that the whole world are idiots
without a mind of themselves ??
AND YOU CANT CHEAT EVERYBODY FOREVER ??!

while you never in your fucken life
INNOVATED ANYTHING ??!!!
--------------

some plans to steal from me something
5
why is it that you erase and limit publicity
of the thread
only after your isiotic shameless atatck
on me
in order that
LESS PEOPLE WILL SEE MY RESPONSE TO YOU ??
is it not a pig crook demagogue human behavior ??
6
and even now
a pig like you ddint respect my
wrighters riights with that it will be published in palces that i
initioated it
a pig like you erased the particle ng again ??
is it not a sign that you are a personal enemy of mine !!
with private dead jealous crocked interests !!
6

if so it is proven again and again and
LET ANYONE HERE KNOW:

PAULE DRAPER -
IS A shameless professional CRIMINAL AGAINST
MANKIND !!! (not only against me )

Y.Porat
------------------------

-----------------

[Y.Porat]

>---------------------
nasty shameless pig
YOU HAVE NOT THE BASIC IDEA
WHAT IS A PHOTON
eevn afer spon feeding you !
andimbecile like you dont understand that
photons has nothing to do with SR
that was found 5 years before SR!!
a pig like you
does not understand that
the photon is moving at** the same velocity
c
no matter in what frame !!!

AND A PIGGSHIT sub human LIKE YOU WHAT TO TEACH ME ABOUT PHOTONS IN
DIFFERENT FRAMES ??
(DOPPLER ETC ??? !!)
> --------------------
Y.P
------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > even a crook like you learned **form me**
> > that hf is a huge stream of  BASIC single
> > photons !! (of about exp-80 Joule!! )
> > the real basic single photon will never be detected or measured !!!
> > so
> > if say frame 2 is running away from frame 1
> > than
> > the stream of single photon that  is constantly leaving frame 1
>
> > IS NOT THE SAME STREAM OF single PHOTONS THAT ENTERS FRAME 2 !!

------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 20, 3:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> so  why did you entered my thread ??
> i ddint    invite   you in  (:-)

You started the thread; you don't _own_ the thread. Do others complain
when you go and post in threads they started, without invitation?
Since you demand such standards of behaviour of others, why don't you
make even a little effort to behave to such standards yourself?

Anyway, what is an invitation to post in one of "your" threads worth?
Paul posted in "your" thread, and you insulted him, abused him, and
generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness.

You invited me to post in "your" thread, and you insulted me, abused
me, and generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness. Also,
you lied to me. Are lies the special benefit I get from the
invitation?

You ASKED me to ask you a particular set of questions here. You KNEW

what the
questions were when you asked me to ask them here. You said you would
answer them if I asked them here.

You didn't. You refused to answer even simple yes/no questions. You
lied, attempted to change the topic, lied again, hurled insults, and
displayed an excessively high level of psychopathic rudeness.

[Y.Porat]

------------------
i start to suspect that 'Timo'is jsut another false name for PD !!

listen idiot crook:
i dont blame anyone for getting in my thread
quite the opposite !!
yet if you follow PD s behavior

he will never enter my thread unless he
thinks he can defame me

he will never get it while he thinks i am right !!

he is coming in as a hidden personal enemy !!
understanding nothing of my innovations
for instance
attemmpting to 'correct my understanding of frames
telling that i undestand nothing about frames
doing his best as i undesrand nothing
aboutr basic physics
while the the opposite is the truth
he has no idea how a physics formula is built and used !
he claimes that if h is a consatnt
it does not have the kilogram diemstion in it
just think:

if g is a constant
DOES IT MEAN THATIT DOESNOT CONTAIN THE LENGTH DIMENSION ?1
2
i am axllaning again and again that
E= hf
was fpond and defined 5 years before SR
so it has nothing to do with SR
and that blockhesd parrot does not understand that photons has
nothing to do with SR
and still heis talikng to me
and and pose if we have to deal with frames in contexst of
photons !!!
in context of phton energy or photons
in general
i initiated the historic formula that is in the op title
noone ever did dand proved it
it is a revolution in modern ohysics
because until now
'anyone know' that E=hf ' is the formula of a single photon ''
while it is an historic harmful 'common
understanding!!

all the nonsens about
' a single photon interfering withitself
is based on that mistake !!
a single photon acting on another one from distance - as above
' the photon has zero mass as above
anyone who wil understand th e new
definition of the real single minimal photon
definition in my op post
will understand that too much of current physicsis nonsense physics
for instance virtual particles without mass!
IF THE PHOTON HAS MASS
- TH EONLY MASS THAN NOTHING TANGIBLE IS OUR WORLD IS NOT
WITHOUT MASS - THE ONLY MASS !!
IF THE PHOTON HAS MASS -THE ONLY MASS
THEN THERE IS NO RELATIVISTIC MASS ANYWHERE !!
is it not a revolution ??
mass is conseved as well as energy is conserved
IS IT NOT A REVOLUTION ??
and waht is the rewards that i get from that
shameless pig?
he is telling the world that i am a crackpot
while
IT IS HIM AND HIS GANG THAT ARE NOT ONLY CRACKPOTS
BUT CROOKS AS WELL!!
criminal againt mankind !!!
PD never admitted thaty
my op formula is right
though he knows that i am right
and he cant deny that historic formula !!
i
broughtthe general insight about how particles are built
and that thife pig know that i knoe 'something about the structure of
matter
because he got my historic book whithout my permission
so i claime i a specialthread that
particles are built from thje smallr and simpler-
to the bigger and more complicated
and not vice versE
understanding it is powerful and useful
practically as for instance at rhe example of the idea of HigGs
Bosons
and since he felt that i am right AND STILL
THAT PIG NEVER ENTERED THAT THREAD TO SUPPORT ME !!
BECAUSE IT WILL SUPPORT ME
(;his private enemy''
AND NOT HIM
etc etc etc
in short
PD is a sub human creature
in hide of a lamb !!!
though i dont need his support
ALL I NEED IS THAT THAT PIG WILL BE HONEST
**AT IFNOT TO HELP
AT LEAST NOT TO DISTURB

(as the ancient Greek oat !!!)
Keep well
and start to open your mind
bot being a parrot !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

No, I live on another continent. You already asked about my day job,
and I told you about my day job. Have you forgotten already?

> listen idiot crook:
> i dont blame anyone for getting in my thread
> quite the  opposite !!

So why alll the lies, evasions, insults, and abuse, after you (already
having seen the questions I would) said you'd answer my questions if I
asked them in this thread?

Especially after your accusations of dishonesty for wanting to hide
stuff when _others_ don't answer _your_ questions, of them not
behaving like "decent human beings", shouldn't you at least make a
tiny little effort (and one hopes, much more than that!) to behave in
the way you demand of others?

Anyway, what is an invitation to post in one of "your" threads worth?
Paul posted in "your" thread, and you insulted him, abused him, and
generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness.

You invited me to post in "your" thread, and you insulted me, abused
me, and generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness. Also,
you lied to me. Are lies the special benefit I get from the
invitation?

You ASKED me to ask you a particular set of questions here. You KNEW
what the
questions were when you asked me to ask them here. You said you would
answer them if I asked them here.

You didn't. You refused to answer even simple yes/no questions. You
lied, attempted to change the topic, lied again, hurled insults, and
displayed an excessively high level of psychopathic rudeness.

You asked me to ask these questions, and said you would answer them.
Then you refuse. What kind of psychopath are you? Can't you behave
like a decent human being?

> attemmpting to 'correct my understanding of frames
> telling that i undestand nothing about frames

You don't appear to understand anything about frames. You evade and
lie and abuse and insult to avoid the discussion that follows from
your initial verbal spew on such matters. If you understand about
frames, why lie, insult, and evade? Why not just answer, simply,
clearly, and honestly, like a decent human being?

What are you hiding in your persistent refusal to answer questions, to
clarify your point, to explain what you mean simply and clearly? Why
run and evade when people ask you to explain what you mean? Why abuse
and insult instead of saying what you mean in clear and simple
English?

What do the honest have to hide? You certainly seem to have something
to hide. That, and you usual vomitous output of insults and abuse, and
refusal to discuss the matter at hand, suggests that you are far from
honest,

I don't care if you're old (or young), or don't know things, or don't
understand things. What does age have to do with it? Lack of knowledge
can be remedied; lack of understanding can be improved. But you spew
out more disgusting filth than the toilet on the ground floor of a
high-rise with a blocked sewer; you are a gutter-hugging trader in
second-hand excrement; you are a shining example of how people should
not behave. Nobody forces you to be such a piece of filth! Why do you
do it? Why can't you behave like a decent human being? Can't you even
pretend in public to be a decent human being?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 20, 9:50 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:49 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> ial u to be such a piece of filth! Why do you

> do it? Why can't you behave like a decent human being? Can't you even
> pretend in public to be a decent human being?

-----------------
i told you retarded donkey!!

THE ANSWERS TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ARE IN THE OP FORMULA!!
got it or not ???

if you don t undestand
ask for explanations
2
please tell me again
what is your day job
but not hidden in an ocean of words !!
i ddint notice it
and again
dont repeat again and again your
long scrolls because
i dont read all of it
just be precise to the main physics points
principles
no more ''i said'' ''''you said
''why did you''' ''and why did i ''endlessly like a donkey
we what to go ahead in **physics arguments** with not least
physics conclusions !!
if you have some conclusions
please start from **your** conclusions first !!
ie from your bottom lines (if you have any ???!!!.....))
and we wil see later if you are right
i am not interested in your abstract 'teaching' ( it seems to me -i am
far ahead of you about the issue !!
BECAUSE I WAS SPENDING MUCH MORE WORK ABOUT IT )
SO not in personal ratting
i have no patience for personal ratings
and if you go on with it
and all your goal in your mind is defaming me
and not advancing physics -
i will send you for instance to PD ...--you know ..me .....
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 19, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 8:50 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 4:36 am, "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > BTW
> > the shameless pig PD snipped
> >   the sci.particle from  my original list
> > and he knew well why he  did it  it was not accidental !!
> > ...
> > he had good ' reasons'' for that  ...
>
> Yes, I did. I choose where I want *my* posts to go. If I think something
> is irrelevant to that group, then I will remove that group when I
> respond. I have absolutely no interest in your seething desire for
> visibility as wide as you can muster. If you want more visibility, be
> sure to include alt.theories.ridiculous and rec.arts.whoring.attention.
> What are YOUR reasons for splattering yourself on so many newsgroups?
>
>

----------------------
THE PIG PD
is ashamed to be a pig
so he erased all his responses in sci.Prticle
relativity and chem from the list
so let the reders have some idea about what
AND WHY HE DID IT !!

so i try (just one of some samples) to add it again to the
to the places that me Y.P
associated them at the original thread
in order that the pig and his tricks
will be shown in other ng s as well !!

Paul Draper is a shameless criminal against mankind !!

not only towards me

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
----------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 20, 8:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 9:50 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 3:49 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ial  u to be such a piece of filth! Why do you
> > do it? Why can't you behave like a decent human being? Can't you even
> > pretend in public to be a decent human being?
>
> -----------------
> i told you retarded donkey!!
>
> THE ANSWERS TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ARE IN THE OP FORMULA!!
> got it or not ???

No, they aren't. The OP formula just proclaims your disbelief in E=hf
as giving the energy of a single photon, that "conventional" photons
are made up of billions and billions of sub-photons. Which is
completely irrelevant to the questions I've been asking (which are
about relativistic definitions of mass). I only asked the questions
here because you ASKED me to ask them here. I said that they're not
relevant to this thread, but you STILL ASKED me to ask them here.

And said you would answer them, and you haven't answered them.

The question you've been avoiding answering:

do you agree or disagree with it?

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

If not, which of (a), (b), or (c), which you agreed earlier were all
correct, do you now disagree with?

Why are you refusing to clearly answer whether or not you agree with
the above calculation? If you don't agree, say "no".

You agreed with the pulse energies being different in the 3 different
coordinate systems; you agreed that, according to your definition of
"mass", "mass" = E/c^2. Do you agree with the "masses" above? Yes or
no?

> if you don t undestand
> ask for explanations

Go ahead, does your "OP formula" translate into a "yes" or "no" for
the above question.

How is it even relevant? The question is about definitions of mass and
whether they are relativistically invariant or not. Nothing to do with
quantum mechanics at all, nothing to do with E=hf.

It's a relativity question. Why would E=hf be relevant? Do you think
that E=hf is somehow relativistic?

> 2
> please tell me again
> what is your day job
> but not hidden in an ocean of words !!
> i ddint notice it

As I said, "I won't answer any more irrelevant personal questions from
you, given your persistent display of psychopathic rudeness and
dishonesty."

But it's no secret. For example, a quick search on Google Scholar will
show you very quickly.

> and again
> dont repeat again and again your
> long scrolls because
> i dont read all of it
> just be precise to the main physics  points
> principles

I tried that. You refused to answer.

> no  more ''i said'' ''''you  said
> ''why did you''' ''and why did i ''endlessly like a donkey
> we what to go ahead in **physics arguments** with not least
> physics conclusions !!

The just answer the questions. If you answered the questions, I
wouldn't need to repeat them, and I wouldn't need to tell you to
behave like a decent human being and answer the questions!

> if you  have some conclusions
> please start from **your** conclusions first !!
> ie from your bottom lines (if you have any ???!!!.....))

Haven't you read the questions at all? That's what I did. The
question, including the conclusion, is:

From (b) and (c), we have

(d) The "masses" of the pulse, as seen at the same time in 3 different
coordinate systems, are (i) 1J/c^2, (ii) 0.9J/c^2, (iii) 1.1J/c^2.

These are different values.

Agree or not? Yes or no?

[Y.Porat]

No imbecile !!

i expalined to you that listen carEful psycho retard :

E=hf
WAS FOUND 5 YEARS BEFORE SR !!
SO
PHOTONS AND ANYTHING IN THEM **HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SR!!
2
something seems that you ddint know :
AL PHOTONS MOVE IN CONSTANT VELOCITY c
IN ALL MOVING FRAMES
certainly if the do not move
i expalined to you MR retard
that aphoton whikle detected

DOES NOT EXIST ANY MORE

SO IT CANT BE IN ANOTHER PLACE OF COORDINATE SYSTEM !!

if you find a photon as well in another system
IT IS NOT THE SAME PHOTON
IT IS ANOTHER PHOTON
SO NOTHING TO COMPARE BETWEEN THEM ANY MORE !!

BYE
psycho moron retard
i had more than enough with you !!
i dont need anymore to know what is your day
Job ...
no one will be stupid to give you a day job !!

NEXT !!!
Y.P
---------------------------------


NEXT

[Timo Nieminen]

Yes, that's what I said. That's why your "OP formula" isn't an answer
to the questions. Not at all. Not even relevant.

Why do you keep bringing up single photons, E=hf, etc., when it has
nothing to do with the questions being asked?

Once more, you said you would answer questions. You said "if you don t
undestand ask for explanations". I asked for an explanation, and you
you provided was more insults and abuse! What kind of psychopath are
you?

So why all the lies, evasions, insults, and abuse, after you (already

having seen the questions I would) said you'd answer my questions if I
asked them in this thread?

Especially after your accusations of dishonesty for wanting to hide
stuff when _others_ don't answer _your_ questions, of them not
behaving like "decent human beings", shouldn't you at least make a
tiny little effort (and one hopes, much more than that!) to behave in
the way you demand of others?

Anyway, what is an invitation to post in one of "your" threads worth?
Paul posted in "your" thread, and you insulted him, abused him, and
generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness.

You invited me to post in "your" thread, and you insulted me, abused
me, and generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness. Also,
you lied to me. Are lies the special benefit I get from the
invitation?

You ASKED me to ask you a particular set of questions here. You KNEW
what the

questions were when you asked me to ask them here. You said you would
answer them if I asked them here.

You didn't. You refused to answer even simple yes/no questions. You
lied, attempted to change the topic, lied again, hurled insults, and
displayed an excessively high level of psychopathic rudeness.

You asked me to ask these questions, and said you would answer them.

Then you refuse. What kind of psychopath are you? Can't you behave

[Y.Porat]

> ----------------------
=========================
LAST sober ATTEMPT !!:

do you understand what is the meaning of the post formula ??
it seesm that you dont understand it at all !!

it means that 'a photon' is not one mass entity
it is a huge stream of tiny masses
running one after the other with the velocity c
that is the same velocity in all frames
no matter if those frames move or are at rest
b
the moment a photon is detect
it is dead
SO THE MOST YOU CAN DO
IS TO **COMPARE SIMILAR PHOTONS
**NOT THE SAME PHOTONS **
do you agree about it ??
-----------
so
THE NUMBER OF THE SINGLE 'BULLETS' (like a bullsts of a machine gun)
so
how many such bullets will enter say a running away frame
depends in how fast is that secondary frame are running away from the
first one

for instance case 1
the secondary frame2 is runs away with the velocity c/2

case2
the running frame 2 is running away - c/ 4 velocity

in which case
more bullets(from the orriginal frame - will hit frame 2
in case 1
or in case 2??

i will answer for you :

in case 1 more photon units will hit the secondary frame
if so
your measuring tools
WILL DETECT A HIGHER FREQUENCY
OF 'OUR PHOTON' than in case 2
(but still lower than the orriginal frequency !!)
so you call it red shift
and you find
'bigger mass photon ' than in case 2
----------------
2
it is** not clear** to me
HOW DO YOU GET EXPERIMENTALLY
YOUR ABOVE FIGURES

experimentally!!
ie
what is your connection to real experimental data ??

untill now i kept polite isn t it ??

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 20, 11:04 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 6:44 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 10:17 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 8:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 20, 9:50 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>

> > > > > On Nov 20, 3:49 like a decent human being?
------------------------------------------

(but still lower than the orriginal frequency !!)A

[Timo Nieminen]

We weren't talking about a single photon. Not even a single photon as
understood by conventional physics. We were talking about a pulse of
light, of total energy of 1J (in frame (a)). At 500nm, that's far from
a single photon.

Whether each "conventional" single photon is made of of billions and
billions of your sub-photons is irrelevant.

> running one after the other with the velocity c
> that is the same velocity in all frames
> no matter if those frames move or are at rest

Sure. What of it? That's already assumed in conventional physics.

> b
> the moment a photon is detect
> it   is dead
> SO THE MOST YOU CAN DO
> IS TO **COMPARE SIMILAR PHOTONS
> **NOT THE SAME PHOTONS **
> do you agree about it ??

For making actual measurements, sure. For a single photon, you can
still compare what the experimental results would be if you made them
in different frames,

Now consider that we have a 1J pulse of 500nm light. How many photons
is that? That's more than 10^33 photons. That's a lot. Much more than
1. If the pulse isn't too short, those 10^33 photons are effectively
IDENTICAL to each other. So we can go ahead and compare similar
photons ("identical" is the best kind of similar we can hope for!).

We could proceed to make measurements in all 3 frames. We could, for
example, use a slightly reflective surface to reflect part of the
pulse into a spectrometer (to measure the frequency or wavelength) or
a power meter (to measure the pulse energy). The wavelength
measurement will be fine for any reflectively of the surface. For the
energy measurement, total pulse energy = measured energy /
reflectivity.

If the reflectivity is low enough, you don't even have to worry about
the drop in pulse energy due to the loss of the reflected light used
to make the measurement. For example, if you used 10,000,000,000
photons to make the measurement in each of the three frames, the
change in the pulse energy will be negligible, 10^33 - 10^10 = 10^33
to an excellent level of approximation.

If the reflectivity is higher, then it still isn't a problem - you
just remember that the pulse energy will be a little lower due to the
energy removed by the measurement.

Extracting part of a beam or pulse like this is done in real
experiments, in real labs. It works.

> -----------
> so
> THE NUMBER OF THE SINGLE 'BULLETS' (like a bullsts of a machine gun)
> so
> how many such bullets will  enter say a running away frame
> depends in how fast is that secondary frame are running away from the
> first one

No. Both coordinate systems (i.e., the "secondary frame" and "the
first one") extend over all space. All of the light is in both frames
at the same time. NO photons leave one frame and enter the other one -
they are in BOTH FRAMES, ALL THE TIME.

> > for instance case 1
> the secondary frame2 is runs away with the velocity c/2
>
> case2
> the running frame 2 is running  away - c/ 4 velocity
>
> in which  case
> more bullets(from the orriginal frame - will   hit frame 2
> in case 1
> or in case 2??
>
> i will answer for you :
>
> in case 1 more photon units will hit the secondary frame
> if so
> your measuring tools
> WILL   DETECT  A HIGHER FREQUENCY
> OF 'OUR PHOTON' than in case 2
> (but still lower than the orriginal frequency !!)A
> so you call it red shift
> and you  find
> 'bigger mass photon '    than in case 2

Do you agree with the classical Doppler effect? No photons needed,
just wavefronts of a continuous classical wave. That's all that's
needed here. You already agreed with the Doppler shift result for the
wavelengths in the 3 frames. You already agreed that the energies of
the pulse in the 3 frames are 0.9J, 1J, and 1.1J. That's all that's
needed to proceed. You already agreed with those things. What you are
talking about above is irrelevant - why go on and on about it? Why not
just answer the original question (which you said you would answer,
but haven't) which doesn't require any of the stuff?

Anyway, apart from being irrelevant, it's also wrong. As already said,
ALL OF THE PHOTONS ARE IN ALL OF THE FRAMES AT ONCE! EVERY ONE OF THE
PHOTONS IS IN ALL 3 FRAMES! THEY DON'T LEAVE FRAME 1 AND HIT FRAME 2
OR FRAME 3! THEY ARE IN ALL 3 FRAMES AT ONCE!

IF THE PHOTONS ARE "REAL", THERE MUST BE THE SAME NUMBER OF THEM IN
ALL 3 FRAMES!

If the above seems incredible to you, we can slow down and discuss how
a box full of ball-bearings looks in 3 different frames. It would be
the same ball-bearings in all frames at once, and the same number of
ball-bearings in all frames, all the time.

> ----------------
> 2
> it is** not clear** to  me
> HOW DO YOU GET EXPERIMENTALLY
> YOUR ABOVE FIGURES
>
> experimentally!!
> ie
> what is your connection to real  experimental data ??

As mentioned after your "b" above.

> untill now i kept polite isn t it  ??

No. You've been generally rude and abusive. Quite psychotic. Do you
really think that the insults and abuse you've been flinging about is
polite? In this post (only this post, not the thread), you've been
comparatively polite. Keep it up!

[Y.Porat]

> --------------------
=================================
if you will not define for me clearly what is your '''pulse of light
''''
AND HOW LONG THAT PULSE IS ACTING
I WILL NOT GO ON DISCUSSING WITH YOU !!
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT SCIENCE
NO TIME - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
2
if your two frames are the same cntaining all the univers withno
relative movement
it is not two frames it is one frame !!
3
do you agree with me that
photons has nothing to do with relativity
4
i of course accept the Doppler effect as a physical phenomena
and i even explained
how my photon not your photons is doing that effect
i expalned it much more tangible than you did
as bullets running after a slow
or a fast moving object
and in which case
MORE BULLETS WILL HIT THE TARGET
AND IN WHICH CASE LES BULLETS WILL HIT THE TARGET]

yet you must stick into your mind that
all of it is
TIME DEPENDENT !!!
YOU CANT IGNORE THE TIME INFLUENCE
ON THE WHOLE ISSUE !!
so you cant say just a '''pulse'''
you have to define how many photon units did act along your pulse or
how long it was acting
5

if you say that all that happened at the same frame
why did you got different results ??

th e Doppler effect is about TWO FRAMES
iow
two frames that move **different **!!

and in that case you have to define
thier difference of movement
or else your case is undefined !!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------

-

[Timo Nieminen]

It's irrelevant. But since you insist, we can say that, in the frame
where the wavelength is 500nm, the pulse is 1microsecond in duration.

> BECAUSE THAT IS NOT SCIENCE
> NO TIME - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!

Go ahead. Explain clearly why this makes a difference.

> 2
> if your two frames are the same cntaining all the univers withno
> relative movement
> it  is not two frames it is one frame !!

We're considering the case where there is relative movement. That is,
the origin of one coordinate system is moving as measured in the other
coordinate system. And the origin of the 3rd coordinate system is
moving as measured in both of the other two coordinate systems.

All 3 coordinate systems cover the whole universe.

Does this need further explanation?

> 3
> do you agree with    me that
> photons has nothing to do with relativity

I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT ALL ALONG! HAVING YOU BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION?
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S KEPT ON TRYING TO INTRODUCE PHOTONS INTO A
DISCUSSION ABOUT MASS AND RELATIVITY WHERE PHOTONS ARE IRRELEVANT!

> 4
> i of course accept the Doppler effect as a physical phenomena

So, you still agree that the wavelengths or the pulse in the 3 frames
being considered are (i) 500nm, (ii) 550nm, (iii) 450nm? Nothing to do
with photons at all - this is the classical Doppler shift, which means
that the frequencies change. Since we have constant c, the wavelengths
must change too. That's all there is to these numbers - no photons, no
rates of photons, nothing quantum at all.

IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION?

OK, HERE IT IS AGAIN:

Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
duration, since you insist that the durations matters).

Now, in a coordinate system (ii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the same
direction as
the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
direction as the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

These quantities are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J
(ii) 550nm, 0.9J
(iii) 450nm, 1.1J

This is just the classical Doppler effect. Nothing quantum whatsoever.
Photons are irrelevant.

Since you say that the mass is E/c^2, the "masses" (according to your
definition of mass) are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2
(ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
(iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2

Agree or disagree? Yes or no?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 21, 11:19 am, Timo Nieminen > > you have to  define how many

photon units did act along your pulse or
> > how long it was acting
> > 5
>
> > if you say that all that happened at the same frame
> > why did you  got different results ??
>
> > th e Doppler effect is about TWO FRAMES
> > iow
> > two frames that move **different **!!
>
> > and in that case you  have to  define
> > thier difference of movement
> > or else your  case is undefined !!
>
> IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION?
>
> OK, HERE IT IS AGAIN:
>
> Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
> duration, since you insist that the durations matters).

>------------------------------
easy sesy!!
if it is 1 microsecond
it is not hf!!
f is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!!
see my op formula

your photon is is hf times your 1micro!!!!
ie you still dint understand my historic op formula
----
anyway
let me go wards you and suggest that we wilL take
1 joule photon that is active during
the famous ONE SECOND
ok ??
------------------------------

> Now, in a coordinate system (ii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the same
> direction as
> the pulse of light,

do you mean that the SECONDARY coordinate SYSTEM
is attached to the photon ??
why not simplify it and day that we have two frames
that move relatively at 3e7 m/s apart from eack one ?? ??
--------------

what are its wavelength and energy?

-----------------
please note that ifit is now one second
it is not as in one micro ''
all is according one second and definitions become simpler !!
------------------

E= hf/lambda
and you will calculate it
i am to lazy
and actually does not matter in pribciple !

----

>
> Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
> direction as the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?
>
> These quantities are:

> --------------------
the wavelength willbe shorter that in case above
so mass momentum acordingly !
------------------

> (i) 500nm, 1.0J
> (ii) 550nm, 0.9J
> (iii) 450nm, 1.1J

> -------------------
no matter wHat will be the relative movement
COMMING CLOSER OR APART
as long as TH E ORIGINAL PHOTON WAVE WILL BE KEPT
CONSTANT IN ALL CASES !!

TH EMOMENTUM ENERGY MASS
listen carefully
all of them considering the ****two frames****
iow
the overall (again overall !!)
mass
energy
momentum
wil be the same
IN THE TWO SYSTEMS !!

how come ??
try to understand my UNPRECEDENTED explantion
about Dopler effect of photons
keeping in mind my above formula
and the mosel of
'a machine gun shooting bullets to a target
no matter if the target is running away
or comming closer
always conservation of all consered properties of photons !!!
----------------

> This is just the classical Doppler effect. Nothing quantum whatsoever.
> Photons are irrelevant.

====================
you are irrelevant !!!
=====================

>
> Since you say that the mass is E/c^2, the "masses" (according to your
> definition of mass) are:
>
> (i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2
> (ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
> (iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2
>
> Agree or disagree? Yes or no?

---------------------------------------------
depends in ***which*** frame
IOW
**IN THE TWO FRAMES **

anything mass momentum energy )
for the similar photon source
******are conserved ******
----------------
iow
the difference is only about
how those quantities are
DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO FRAMES !!
and that is my historic innovation

btw
nothing different than in MACROCOSM !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 21, 8:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:19 am, Timo Nieminen
>

> > > how long it was acting
> > > 5
>
> > > if you say that all that happened at the same frame
> > > why did you  got different results ??
>
> > > th e Doppler effect is about TWO FRAMES
> > > iow
> > > two frames that move **different **!!
>
> > > and in that case you  have to  define
> > > thier difference of movement
> > > or else your  case is undefined !!
>
> > IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION?
>
> > OK, HERE IT IS AGAIN:
>
> > Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
> > duration, since you insist that the durations matters).
> >------------------------------
>
> easy sesy!!
> if it is 1 microsecond
> it  is  not hf!!
> f is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!!
> see my op  formula

E=hf is irrelevant. This isn't about a single photon. It's about the
energy of a 1J pulse of light. HOW DOES THE DURATION OF THE PULSE
AFFECT THE ENERGY? HOW IS IT RELEVANT?

> your photon is  is hf   times your 1micro!!!!
> ie you still dint understand my historic op  formula

No, it's a 1J pulse of light. Not "hf times 1micro" or such. Just a
1J pulse of light!

> ----
> anyway
> let me go wards you and suggest that we wilL take
>  1 joule photon that is active during
>  the   famous   ONE SECOND
> ok ??

No. You asked me to specify the duration of the pulse, and I chose a
duration.

If you think that the 1J pulse would have a different energy, or a
different momentum, or a different "mass" (according to your
definition of mass) if it was 1 second in duration instead of 1
microsecond, explain. No babble, just a clear explanation.

> > Now, in a coordinate system (ii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the same
> > direction as
> > the pulse of light,
>
> do  you  mean that the  SECONDARY  coordinate SYSTEM
> is attached to the photon ??

No. I mean that this coordinate system (it's the 2nd one we're
considering, but it isn't a "secondary" coordinate system) has an
origin that, as measured in the 1st coordinate system, is moving at
3e7 m/s in the same direction as the pulse.

> why not simplify it and day that we have two frames
> that move relatively at 3e7 m/s   apart from eack one ?? ??

The direction matters. We need to specify the direction as well.

>  what are its wavelength and energy?
>
> -----------------
> please note  that ifit is   now one second
> it is    not as in one micro ''
> all   is  according one second and definitions become simpler !!
> ------------------
>
> E=  hf/lambda
> and you will calculate it
> i am to lazy
> and actually does not matter in pribciple !

Why would you use E=hf/lambda (sic)? We don't have a single photon.

In the 1st coordinate system (1J, 500nm), we have c=f*lambda, so f=c/
lambda. f=3e8/5e-7=6e14Hz. Go ahead, show how E=hf or E=hf/lambda
gives you the 1J of energy!

> > Now, in a coordinate system moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
> > direction as the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?
>
> > These quantities are:
> > --------------------
>
> the  wavelength willbe shorter that in case above
> so mass momentum acordingly !

Yes, the wavelength will be shorter. It's blueshifted. You already
agreed that the wavelength will be (about) 450nm, and the pulse energy
will be 1.1J.

> ------------------> (i) 500nm, 1.0J
> > (ii) 550nm, 0.9J
> > (iii) 450nm, 1.1J
> > -------------------
>
> no  matter  wHat will be the relative movement
> COMMING CLOSER OR APART
> as long as TH E  ORIGINAL PHOTON WAVE WILL BE KEPT
> CONSTANT IN ALL CASES !!
>
> TH EMOMENTUM    ENERGY   MASS
> listen carefully
> all of them considering the ****two frames****
> iow
> the overall  (again   overall !!)
> mass
> energy
> momentum
> wil be the same
> IN THE TWO SYSTEMS !!

You said above "the wavelength willbe shorter that in case above so
mass momentum acordingly !". Now you are saying that they'll be the
same. Which is it? In one post, you're saying two contradictory
things. Which one do you mean?

>
> how come ??
> try to understand my  UNPRECEDENTED explantion
> about Dopler effect of photons
> keeping in mind my above formula
> and the mosel of
> 'a machine gun shooting bullets to a target
> no matter if the target is running away
> or comming closer
> always conservation of all consered  properties of photons !!!
> ----------------
>
> > This is just the classical Doppler effect. Nothing quantum whatsoever.
> > Photons are irrelevant.
>
> ====================
> you are irrelevant !!!
> =====================
>
> > Since you say that the mass is E/c^2, the "masses" (according to your
> > definition of mass) are:
>
> > (i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2
> > (ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
> > (iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2
>
> > Agree or disagree? Yes or no?
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> depends in ***which***   frame

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN THE BEGINNING OF THE POST YOU ARE REPLYING TO
ALREADY? GO BACK AND READ IT AGAIN! ***WHICH*** FRAME IS CLEARLY
STATED!!!!! CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH AT ALL?

> IOW
> **IN THE TWO FRAMES **
>
> anything      mass        momentum     energy )
>  for the similar photon  source
> ******are conserved  ******

Nothing about the pulse changes. Conservation of mass, energy,
momentum are irrelevant. THE PULSE DOESN'T CHANGE! Consider the
example of an arrow (given earlier in the discussion), as seen in 3
different frames - in each frame, the momentum and energy are
different, but it's the same arrow. That these quantities are
different in the different frames has NOTHING to do with conservation
of energy and momentum. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE AND BASIC POINT?
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, ANY IDEA AT ALL, WHAT A REFERENCE FRAME IS?

I see that ONCE AGAIN, you REFUSED to answer a simple YES/NO question.
The yes/no question that you earlier said you would answer if it was
asked here.

All you did was attempt yet again to bring E=hf into a discussion
where it is irrelevant (Why? Do you think that it has something to do
with relativity?), babble incoherently, abuse and insult. Aren't you
capable of discussing physics like a decent human being? Aren't you
capable of discussing physics?

Why can't you answer a simple yes/no question? Try again, if you are
capable! Just answer the yes/no question at the end, without your
usual insults, abuse, irrelevant babbling on E=hf, and demented
diversions - just answer this question, like you said you would. An
honest man would answer the question he said he would answer; you
haven't answered - aren't you honest? Anyway, the question:

Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
duration, since you insist that the durations matters).

Now, in a coordinate system (ii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the same
direction as

the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

Now, in a coordinate system (iii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite

direction as the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

These quantities are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J
(ii) 550nm, 0.9J
(iii) 450nm, 1.1J

(You already agreed that these values are correct.)

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 21, 1:55 pm, Tim OK, HERE IT IS AGAIN:

>
> > > Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
> > > duration, since you insist that the durations matters).
> > >------------------------------
>
> > easy sesy!!
> > if it is 1 microsecond
> > it  is  not hf!!
> > f is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!!
> > see my op  formula
>
> E=hf is irrelevant. This isn't about a single photon. It's about the
> energy of a 1J pulse of light. HOW DOES THE DURATION OF THE PULSE
> AFFECT THE ENERGY? HOW IS IT RELEVANT?

---------------------
(:-)
if your car is in the sun one hour
or is it is two hours in sun
will the temoerature inside it
will be the same ???

i start to suspect that you are not a physicist
but a mathematician !!

so stickit to your skull once and for all
energy emission is** time dependent **
if you dont understand that
you understand nothing about our issue !!
--------------

>
> > your photon is  is hf   times your 1micro!!!!
> > ie you still dint understand my historic op  formula
>
> No, it's a 1J pulse of light. Not "hf   times 1micro" or such. Just a
> 1J pulse of light!

>------------------
what the hell is your pulse of light
if not by photons ???
------------
as long as you will not explaine waht is that
puse of light we have nothingto go on!!

2
about the Doppler effect
indeed in that case
there might be a connection to SR art high velocities of the target
ie
is one of the frames is sitting on a mass
itis the mass velocity that is abided to
SR!!
but not the photon part in that story

Y.P
------------------------------

> > ----
> > anyway
> > let me go wards you and suggest that we wilL take
> >  1 joule photon that is active during
> >  the   famous   ONE SECOND
> > ok ??
>
> No. You asked me to specify the duration of the pulse, and I chose a
> duration.

--------------

>
> If you think that the 1J pulse would have a different energy, or a
> different momentum, or a different "mass" (according to your
> definition of mass) if it was 1 second in duration instead of 1
> microsecond, explain. No babble, just a clear explanation.

--------------
hf is one second defined idiot moron parrot !!

see the definition of f !!!
without that we cant go ahead

Y.P
-----------

>

[PD]

On 11/21/2011 4:36 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:19 am, Timo Nieminen> > you have to define how many

>>

>> Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
>> duration, since you insist that the durations matters).
>> ------------------------------
> easy sesy!!
> if it is 1 microsecond
> it is not hf!!
> f is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!!
> see my op formula
>

Oh, good grief.
There is ZERO value in talking to Porat, who believes that hf can ONLY
refer to something that is one second in duration.
Idiot.

[Y.Porat]

---------------------
PD are you out of your mind just because
personal antonymous ??
HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT I CLAIMED
THAT hf CAN BE REFEREED or used ONLY BY ONE SECOND !!??

JUST SEE THE OP POST FORMULA !!
***the truth is quite the opposite !!**
i enlarged the range of use of hf
not limited it !!!

n CAN BE ANYTHING above zero

MY ABOVE FORMULA DEALS WITH THE
SMALLEST RANGES OF THE PHOTON ENERGY!!
DOES IT MEAN THAT I LIMITED OR WAS DEALING WITH THE BIGGEST
RAGES??

there is no limit to your hatred cheating and insanity ??

btw
i never intended to attack you personally!
you will be surprised
there are many fields that i appreciate your knowledge !!!
because i consider and lack of hypocrisy as one of the most
imported features of a real scientist (free of personal
calculations !!!
listen carefully
i attack only for self defensive goals
ie
UNLESS YOU ATTACHED ME FIRST!!
unjustly !!

ether with by your 'elegant' snaky way
or open rude way
i attack only while someone is attacking me
or climbing on my nerves by blunt false behavior against me
or even against others
like cheating and dishonesty etc

keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 21, 10:27 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:55 pm, Tim OK, HERE IT IS AGAIN:
>
> > > > Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
> > > > duration, since you insist that the durations matters).
> > > >------------------------------
>
> > > easy sesy!!
> > > if it is 1 microsecond
> > > it  is  not hf!!
> > > f is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!!
> > > see my op  formula
>
> > E=hf is irrelevant. This isn't about a single photon. It's about the
> > energy of a 1J pulse of light. HOW DOES THE DURATION OF THE PULSE
> > AFFECT THE ENERGY? HOW IS IT RELEVANT?
>
> ---------------------
> (:-)
> if your car is in the sun one hour
> or  is   it is two hours   in sun
> will the   temoerature inside   it
> will be the same ???

Don't you know the difference between energy and power? The
relationship between energy and power?

For each pulse, we have E=P*t, where E is the energy of the pulse, P
is the average power of the pulse, and t is the duration of the pulse.

For pulse 1: E1 = P1 * t1 = 1e6W * 1e-6s = 1J

For pulse 2: E2 = P2 * t2 = 1W * 1s = 1J

Go ahead, explain how the 1J for the 1microsecond pulse is a different
amount to the 1J of the 1s pulse. Go ahead, and explain how 1J is not
1J.

For your car example, we have about 3kW incident on a car (depends on
size of car, time of day, latitude, and more, but this value will do).

1 hour exposure: E1 = P * t1 = 3e3W * 3600hours = 1.08e7 = 10.8MJ

2 hour exposure: E2 = P * t2 = 3e3W * 7200hourse = 2.16e7 = 21.6MJ

Those are different amounts of energy, since in this case, unlike the
case of the 2 1J pulses, the average power is the same.

Why are you using an example of the effect of 2 _different_ amounts of
energy to explain why two _same_ amounts of energy are different?

>
> i start to  suspect   that   you  are not a physicist
> but a mathematician  !!
>
> so  stickit to  your skull   once and for all
> energy emission  is** time dependent  **
> if you dont understand that
> you understand nothing about our issue !!
> --------------
>
> > > your photon is  is hf   times your 1micro!!!!
> > > ie you still dint understand my historic op  formula
>
> > No, it's a 1J pulse of light. Not "hf   times 1micro" or such. Just a
> > 1J pulse of light!
> >------------------
>
> what the hell   is your pulse of light
> if not by photons ???
> ------------
> as long as you will not explaine waht is that
> puse of light we have nothingto go on!!

You can model the pulse as (a very large number of) photons. You can
model it a classical continuous electromagnetic wave. Either would
work. Both are unnecessary for the present question - what matters is
the pulse energy, as seen in 3 different coordinate systems, and we
don't need to go to that level of detail.

I've already explained to you, over and over, that we are using the
classical continuous model. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED! CAN'T YOU
READ PLAIN ENGLISH? WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING FOR THE SAME INFORMATION
OVER AND OVER? HAVE YOU NO MEMORY AT ALL?

hf is irrelevant. We're NOT talking about photons. DO YOU THINK THAT
E=hf IS RELATIVISTIC, AND WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT RELATIVITY WITHOUT hf?

I see that ONCE AGAIN, you REFUSED to answer a simple YES/NO question.
The yes/no question that you earlier said you would answer if it was
asked here.

All you did was attempt yet again to bring E=hf into a discussion
where it is irrelevant (Why? Do you think that it has something to do

with relativity?), tried to claim that 1J is different to 1J, babble

incoherently, abuse and insult. Aren't you capable of discussing
physics like a decent human being? Aren't you capable of discussing
physics?

Why can't you answer a simple yes/no question? Try again, if you are
capable! Just answer the yes/no question at the end, without your
usual insults, abuse, irrelevant babbling on E=hf, and demented
diversions - just answer this question, like you said you would. An
honest man would answer the question he said he would answer; you
haven't answered - aren't you honest? Anyway, the question:

Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
duration, since you insist that the durations matters).

Now, in a coordinate system (ii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the same
direction as
the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

Now, in a coordinate system (iii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
direction as the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

These quantities are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J
(ii) 550nm, 0.9J
(iii) 450nm, 1.1J

(You already agreed that these values are correct.)

[Y.Porat]

--------------------
i dont mind your examples and calculations

just tell us THE BOTTOM LINES OF YOURS

i am interested in principle of physics conservations
and not anything else
so
IS YOUR FINDINGS CONTRADICT
MY FINDINGS THAT :

MASS
ENERGY
MOMENTUM
OF PHOTONS
are CONSERVED !??

(as it is conserved in macrocosm )
OR NOT ??

nothing else is in my interest as for now

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------

[Y.Porat]

and in addition to the above

do you agree with me that

Energy of photons emission is
**TIMES DEPENDENT!!

if yes my above op formula is unprecedented !!
because no one ever before presented it as i did
or expanded it to the less than one second range !!
and the values that are resulting from it

my minimal suggestion for the smallest photon energy
is about exp-80 Joule !!
that is as well unprecedented !!
2
mind you
th e common paradigm is that
th e photon has zero mass !!!
while i proved that it has a non zero mass
which is as well unprecedented !!


TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
--------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

No, of course my "findings" (hardly *my* findings; this stuff has been
well known for a _long_ time, some of it for centuries) don't
contradict conservation of energy or momentum. Using _your_ definition
of "mass", they don't contradict conservation of "mass" either.

> nothing else is in my interest as for now
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------------

I see that ONCE AGAIN, you REFUSED to answer a simple YES/NO question.
The yes/no question that you earlier said you would answer if it was
asked here.

[PD]

On 11/21/2011 2:30 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:

>
> Since you say that the mass is E/c^2, the "masses" (according to your
> definition of mass) are:
>
> (i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2
> (ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
> (iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2
>
> Agree or disagree? Yes or no?

Numbers with units? Trying to get Porat to even read them, let alone
agree or disagree with them? What, are you crazy?

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 21, 10:30 pm, > > Agree or disagree? Yes or no?

--------------------------
***if it is not contradictiong the conseravtions laws ****for photons

of mass
Energy
momentum

laws -yes
if contradicting any of them =NO!!

2
you cant speak about
' a pulse of** light' without photons !!!
3
you cant calculate frequency of a photon
without the
E=hf formula THATIS BASED ON f
THAT IS ONE SECOND DEFINITION !!

iow
in order to calculate frequency f
YOU MUST TRANSLATE ALL YOUR UNITS
TO BE BASED ON THE **SECOND** DIMENSION !!!!(or am equivalent
dimension system
yet the data must be consistent
for that dimension system

BYE
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

Yes we can. It was done before photons were thought of, and is still
done today. Just like we can speak of the kinetic energy of a block of
iron, and the momentum of a block of iron, without needing to speak
about the individual iron atoms making up the block.

> 3
> you   cant calculate frequency   of a photon
> without the
> E=hf formula  THATIS BASED ON f
> THAT IS ONE SECOND DEFINITION !!

YES WE CAN. IT'S VERY SIMPLE!! IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THIS
THREAD!!! DIDN'T YOU NOTICE?

LOOK AT THIS GREAT FEAT! BEHOLD THE WONDER OF CALCULATING THE
FREQUENCY OF A PHOTON WITHOUT USING E=hf!!!!!!!!

Take a pulse of light of wavelength 500nm. (You can MEASURE this
wavelength using, e.g., a diffraction grating.) The speed of the pulse
of light is c (you can measure this as well).

For a wave, we have speed = frequency * wavelength, so .....

f = c/lambda = 3e8/5e-7 = 6e14Hz.

That's the frequency of the classical wave. The frequency of the
photons is the same as this (by definition of the frequency of a
photon).

Done! That wasn't impossible, was it?

> iow
> in   order to calculate frequency f
> YOU   MUST TRANSLATE ALL YOUR UNITS
> TO  BE BASED  ON THE **SECOND** DIMENSION !!!!(or am equivalent
> dimension   system
>  yet the data must be consistent
> for that dimension system

All the values I gave were in SI units. Do you know what SI units are?
The base unit for time in SI is THE **SECOND**!!!

> BYE
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------

[Y.Porat]

--------------------
since i feel something fishy AND DISTURBED about your personality
and Goals

I WILL NOT GO ON DISCUSSING
WITH YOU

UNLESS YOU WILL TELL ME AND OTHERS
AGAIN: AT THE TOP OF YOUR RESPONSE!!

WHAT IS YOUR DAY JOB??
WHAT IS YOUR AGE ??

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
-----------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

haven't answered - aren't you honest? Clearly not! You're rude and
abusive, deeply dishonest, a hypocrite, and generally psychotic.
You're a disgusting piece of filth. You've had more than enough
chances to act like a decent human being, to show at least a shred of
honesty, and you evaded every single such opportunity.

Anyway, the question:

Take a 1J pulse of light, wavelength 500nm (and 1microsecond in
duration, since you insist that the durations matters).

Now, in a coordinate system (ii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the same
direction as
the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

Now, in a coordinate system (iii) moving at 3e7 m/s in the opposite
direction as the pulse of light, what are its wavelength and energy?

These quantities are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J
(ii) 550nm, 0.9J
(iii) 450nm, 1.1J

(You already agreed that these values are correct.)

Since you say that the mass is E/c^2, the "masses" (according to your
definition of mass) are:

(i) 500nm, 1.0J: 1.0J/c^2
(ii) 550nm, 0.9J: 0.9J/c^2
(iii) 450nm, 1.1J: 1.1J/c^2

Agree or disagree? Yes or no?

> WHAT IS YOUR DAY JOB??

Told you already, won't tell you again. It's irrelevant, nothing to do
with the question at hand. Besides, you're a psychotically rude and
abusive liar, and I really don't see any compelling reason to give you
irrelevant personal information.

> WHAT IS YOUR AGE ??

It's irrelevant, nothing to do with the question at hand. Besides,
you're a psychotically rude and abusive liar, and I really don't see
any compelling reason to give you irrelevant personal information.

[Y.Porat]

------------------
==============================
psychopath crook gangster
no more one sided game !!
if you want a discussion it must be
mutual
you have to answer my questions **as well!!**

I ASKED YOU IF YOUR CALCULATIONS ARE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE
OVER ALL CONSERVATIONS RULE
conservation of
of energy
momentum
mass

AND YOU
DISTURBED PIGGSHIT DINT ANSWER !!!

BYE
psycho gangster
go discuss with your disturbed gangsters

Y.Porat
-------------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 22, 8:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ------------------
> ==============================
> psychopath crook gangster
> no  more one sided   game !!
> if you want a discussion it must be
> mutual
> you have to answer my questions **as well!!**

You haven't been answering my questions! You said you would answer
them if I asked them in this thread. You refused to answer them.
Meanwhile, you kept asking questions, and I answered them, and you
refused to answer the question you said would answer. So, you're a
dishonest hypocrite, psychotically rude and abusive, dishonest to the
core, a real piece of filth!

> I ASKED YOU IF YOUR CALCULATIONS ARE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE
> OVER ALL  CONSERVATIONS RULE
> conservation of
> of energy
> momentum
> mass
>
> AND YOU
> DISTURBED PIGGSHIT DINT ANSWER !!!

Liar! I answered. You even replied to my answer, so you can't claim
that you didn't see it.

Such dishonesty!

Why all the lies, evasions, insults, and abuse, after you (already

having seen the questions I would) said you'd answer my questions if I
asked them in this thread?

Especially after your accusations of dishonesty for wanting to hide
stuff when _others_ don't answer _your_ questions, of them not
behaving like "decent human beings", shouldn't you at least make a
tiny little effort (and one hopes, much more than that!) to behave in
the way you demand of others?

You invited me to post in "your" thread, and you insulted me, abused
me, and generally displayed a psychopathic level of rudeness. Also,
you lied to me. Are lies the special benefit I get from the
invitation?

You ASKED me to ask you a particular set of questions here. You KNEW
what the
questions were when you asked me to ask them here. You said you would
answer them if I asked them here.

You didn't. You refused to answer even simple yes/no questions. You
lied, attempted to change the topic, lied again, hurled insults, and
displayed an excessively high level of psychopathic rudeness.

You asked me to ask these questions, and said you would answer them.
Then you refuse. What kind of psychopath are you? Can't you behave

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 22, 1:21 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 8:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ------------------
> > ==============================
> > psychopath crook gangster
> > no  more one sided   game !!
> > if you want a discussion it must be
> > mutual
> > you have to answer my questions **as well!!**
>
>

BYE
Psycho !! go see your Doctor
Y.P
-------------------------

[jem]

Hasn't that hook in your cheek begun hurting yet?

Why are you trying so hard to prompt a discussion with someone you
realize is psychopathic?

[Y.Porat]

--------------------
ddi you follow how he was listening to me
fo rinstance
i asked him if his calculations are in contradiction to the rules
conservation
is it an important question as you understand it
and he insisted as mad dog that i will
make his calculations
(it is not clear at alifit is calculations
based on experimental obseravtions
or from jis wiled immagiantion??
and i was interested in his
CONCLUSIONS OUT OF IT
NOT IN THE DETAILS
AND HE DDI NT ANSWER WAHT WAS HIS CONCLUSIONS
LIKE
IS IT INDICATING THATMASS OF PHOOTN IS CHANGING OR NOT?
2
nomatter how i erased his long histoery of conversation as a long
scroll
he kept on bringingit all of it again and agin
didens of time all the scroll
including
askink again and aghain
demanding that i will check his calculations
i even told him
'suppose all your calculations are
right
GIVING HIM THE CREDIC THAT THEY ARE RIGHT
AND THE DONKEY WAS NOT SATISFIED ...
HE INSISTED THAT I WILL PERSONALLY DO IT
why ??
giving him the credit thath is calculations are right
IS NOT ENOUGH FOR A SANE BALANCED MAN ??
and hekept on complaining on and on and on
''why did i invited to my thread?
is it such a crime to invite him to discuss and check it from many
aspects
by the above unprecedented formula ??

2
btw
do** you** understand my above
op formula
and accept it ??
does it look reasonable to you ??

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
------------------------------