E = h f IS A SIMPLE PROVE THAT 'RELATIVIRIC MASS '' IS NONSENCE PHYSICS !!

[pora...@gmail.com]

E = h f IS A SIMPLE PROVE THAT
'RELATIVIRIC MASS '' - IS NONSENCE PHYSICS !!

============================
just make the simple proper Dimension analysis and you get it!!
-----
why had it to take more than 100 years to discover it
by an anonymous Engineer ???!!!
----------------
if you have questions - just ask !!!
====================================================================
TIA
Eng
Yehiel Porat
==================================================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 16 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 17:00:27 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

that is
no more
not less
a revolution in modern physics !
and more
=========================================
'NO MASS ' --**THE RONLY MASS **!!!
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
========================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 16 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 17:00:27 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

to those among you
who never bothered to do
a dimension analysis
I will help a bit
=============================
h f physical dimensions is

6.6 Exp -34 times Kilogram Metter ^2 /Second ^2 times some scalar figure
================
the intelligent thing to do with it
that was never during last more than 100years done
is /


TO SEE : WAHT **IS** THERE IN IT
and not least

TO SEE
WHAT ** IS NOT**!!! THER- IN IT

AGAIN
WHAT ***IS NOT IN IT*** !!


TIA
ENG
Y.Porat
---------
historic ***revolutionary**!!!! old copyright of mine
=======================================================

[noTthaTguY]

iff an object is accelerated to any fraction of c,
it will gain mass due to the fact that
all of the orbitals have a component in that direction
(every singly orbit that is not perpendicular
to the direction of travel around teh speed of lightwaves

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 18 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 07:04:15 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

==================================================
sorry
you understood nothing about my historic finding !!!

what I did is sort of
CATCHUIONG THE BULL BY HIS HORNES''

WITH AS LITTLE WORDS AS POSSIBLE !!!

====

we have to understand

the photon is moving with maximum velocity c !!
and
and
IT HAS MASS
AGAIN
IT HAS MASS !!
the dimension analysis I did in h f
shows clearly that
there is nothing in that hf
that is multiplying the Kilograms there
not by any zero factor
nor by any relativistic factor !!!!
it means that
the mass of the photon is not zero nor relativistic mass!!
2
now comes a further **thinking** for intelligent scientist
9or even by semi intelligent ...

if the photon with its non zero mass
is moving with the maximum velocity c

AND EVEN SO
THAT MASS IN IT IS A* NOT RELATIVISTIC !!
THAT ANY OTHER MASS THAT WILL MOVE
IN A SLOWER (slower VELOCITY--
CERTAINLY (CERTAINLY)
THAT ANY OTHER MASS
IS NOT RELATIVISTIC AS WELL !!
IN OTHER WORDS
ALL THE IDEA OF 'RELATIVISTIC MASS''
IS NONSENS PHYSICCS !!!
IOW
JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!
NO MATTER HOW YOU CALL IT !!


3
I heard smart crocks like in sci research that tell you
'' hf is not update '!!!
---
they stick to it
there parts of other energy formula of other formula
like

mc^2
etc etc

but that is shameless cheating or at the good case
ignorance parroting !!-
IN OUR LITTLE VILAGE THERE IS A SAYING

in free clumsy translation )
:
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CHEAT
-TAKES HIS TESTIMOMY TO SOME DISTANT PLACE !!
====
SO I ASK THEM (THOSE WHO TRY TO STICK TO h f SOMETHING ELSE )
---
3 SIMPLE QUESTIONS
1
DOES ENERGY OF PHOTON - HAVE -MORE ENERGY THAN h f??
2
DOES PHOTON ENERGY - Have LESS ENERGY THAN h f ??
3
IF SO
IS THER ANY NEED TO ADD SOMETHING TO h f
IN ORDER TO **DEFINE*
PHOTON ENERGY !!???!!
=====================
The pig criminal moderator - blocked those questions
guess why ??

TIA
Y.Porat
=================================

[noTthaTguY]

your story is not in any language that can be grokked (and
that is just a term from fiction, but

> > (every singly orbit that is not perpendicular

> > to the direction of travel around tHE speed of lightwaves
> ==================================================

> CATCHIONG THE BULL BY HIS HORNS WITH AS few WORDS AS is POSSIBLE !!!

[Antonio Mandolin]

>CATCHUIONG THE BULL BY HIS HORNES''

Wat

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 19 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 04:37:55 UTC+3, מאת Antonio Mandolin:

> >CATCHUIONG THE BULL BY HIS HORNES''
>
> Wat

=============================
ask physics questions
unless you are a hired criminal against mankind gangster
===
Y.P
==================

[noTthaTguY]

the speed of light is always less than c,
owing to the index of refraction of the medium,
which always containeth atoms; iff
you cannot apply Snell's goD-Am laW, then
do not apply Snell's laW in any way

> > > (every singly orbit that is not perpendicular
> > > to the direction of travel around tHE speed of lightwaves

> > if the photon with its non zero mass
> > is moving with the maximum velocity c

> > mc^2

> > IN OUR LITTLE VILAGE THERE IS A SAYING

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 19 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 22:17:03 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

> the speed of light is always less than c,
> owing to the index of refraction of the medium,

=====================================
may be
yet not all physicists agree with you about it
========================

> which always containeth atoms; iff
> you cannot apply Snell's goD-Am laW, then
> do not apply Snell's laW in any way

======================
where the F you see in my above op post /historic prove
ANY USE OF SNELL S LAW ???!!
are yo sure you understood my above simple prove ???!!
I am not sure you understood it !!
======

>
> > > > (every singly orbit that is not perpendicular
> > > > to the direction of travel around tHE speed of lightwaves

---
?????
-----

>
> > > if the photon with its non zero mass
> > > is moving with the maximum velocity c

====
you didn't understand my other conclusion

THE PHOTON IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT
''NO MASS CAN REACH C
its mass is so small (exp- 90 Kilogram !!!
so
IT IS MOVING AT c AND STILL HAS MASS !!!
THE ONLY MASS
NOT RELATIVISTIC ANDNOT SCHMELATIVISTIC !!
=============

>
> > > mc^2
>
> > > IN OUR LITTLE VILAGE THERE IS A SAYING

===
'ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO CHST
-IS TAKING HIS TESTIMONY
TO SOME DISTANT PLACE '
===
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WAHT YOU DO NOW
!!!

>
> > > IS THER ANY NEED TO ADD SOMETHING TO h f
> > > IN ORDER TO **DEFINE*
> > > PHOTON ENERGY !!???!!

=======================
YOU DIDNT ANSWER MY ABOBE 3 QUESTIONS =
1
does the photon has **more **energy than h f ?
2
does the photon has **ess ** energy than h f !!
3
does the photon has
exactly the energy defined by h f !!
(and in that case
NO NEED TO ADD (artificially ) ANYTHING TO IT !!)
======================================================
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================

[noTthaTguY]

what a ridiculous definition of mass,
exp(-90) kilograms ... wTf is that supposed to mean?

even the mainstream, EinsteinmaniA ideal,
knows that light is completely massless. so, the questionis,
how does light impart momentum to atoms?

anyway, if you can't even handle Snells's laW,
which is the simplest application of the Law of sineS,
other than the law of sines, itself,
when did you ever think that you were an engineer?

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 20 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 23:06:55 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

========================
your mother is mass less
-----
2
why don't you answer my above
3 questions :
===========================
1
does the photon has** more**energy than h f
2
does the photon has **less**than h f
3
does it has exactly energy defined by h f

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

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 20 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 23:06:55 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

=======================
where did you see me using Snell's law ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================

[noTthaTguY]

see, you just pulled the figure of e^-90 kilos out of your behind, because
even that small of a mass cannot reach teh speed oflight,
without becoming infinite, just as in all relatavistical equations.

so, if you were ever an engineer,
you were at most a sanitation engineer (and, I'm sure that
the u.s.a sstandard for them is a lot more,
than it used to be, where ever you came from

> > exp(-90) kilograms ... wTf is that supposed to mean?

> > how does light impart momentum to atoms?
> >
> > anyway, if you can't even handle Snells's laW,

> > when did you ever think that you were an engineer?
> >
> > > > the speed of light is always less than c,
> > > > owing to the index of refraction of the medium,

> > > > which always containeth atoms; iff
> > > > you cannot apply Snell's goD-Am laW, then
> > > > do not apply Snell's laW in any way

> > > where the F you see in my above op post /historic prove
> > > ANY USE OF SNELL S LAW ???!!
> > > are yo sure you understood my above simple prove ???!!

> > > > > > > (every singlE orbit that is not perpendicular

> > > > > > > to the direction of travel around tHE speed of lightwaves

> > > > > > if the photon with its non zero mass
> > > > > > is moving with the maximum velocity c

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 22 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 02:11:41 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

> see, you just pulled the figure of e^-90 kilos out of your behind, because
> even that small of a mass cannot reach teh speed oflight,
> without becoming infinite, just as in all relatavistical equations.
>
> so, if you were ever an engineer,
> you were at most a sanitation engineer (and,

========================
not sanitation
I was a bridge engineer that designed more than
60 bridges
what was you doing with you F en gangster sabotage life ???
2
a kaker like you
will never understand how I got those
exp -90 Kilogram mass
the only mass
3
tell us little pisher
where in h f you see
relativistic mass ??
and why ''relativistic ''
or zero mass ??4
what is your real F en name
anonymous pig gangster ??

Y.P
===================================

--

[noTthaTguY]

you are not being a correspondent;
you are just berating my lack of bridge-building ...
which certainly might involve a lot of fecalizations.

the prime datum of lightwaveiness is just
the secondpower of the speed of light,
which is the rate of growth of wome thing per second
-- per second per second!

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 22 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 23:06:47 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

just answer my above simple 3 questions
Y.P
=============================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 23 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 04:30:28 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

no answer is sometimes
much more than an answer !!!

next
to human beings

TIA
Y.Porat
=======================================

[noTthaTguY]

the fact is that you have no means,
to get e to the minus ninetieth power kilograms
of anything that makes any sense

IF you cannot use Snell's laW of refraction,
how can you comprehend any thing about light waves
in free space, mister bridge-engineer?

> > > > > > > how does light impart momentum to atoms?
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > the speed of light is always less than c,
> > > > > > > > > owing to the index of refraction of the medium,
> > > > > > > > > which always containeth atoms; iff

> > > > > > > > > > > > (every singlE electronic orbit

> > > > > > > > > > > > that is not perpendicular
> > > > > > > > > > > > to the direction of travel around tHE speed of

> > > > > > =======================
> > > > > > where did you see me using Snell's law ??

[pora...@gmail.com]

===============
wrong very wrong !!
you will be surprised how simple it is
just a bit more understanding physics
and a bit less parroting mind !!
=
all used is the above historic formula of Planck
E=h f
now I will give you a hint
that is MORE THAN enough for
THINKING PEOPE !!
==================
f is just one second defined !!
ie
NO MORE THAN A SECOND
NO LESS THA A SECOND !!
================
2
and still you refuse to answer my above
3 questions
--------------
1
does the photon has more energy - than h f
2
does the photon has less energy than h f
3
or
it has exactly the energy defined by h f !!

TIA
Y.Porat
===================================

[noTthaTguY]

certainly, frequency is defined with respect to the second, but,
as there is no integral result in that way,
it has only relative meaning (not relativistic,
whether or not you make any attempt to know relativity

> > IF you cannot use Snell's laW of refraction,
> > how can you comprehend any thing about light waves
> > in free space, mister bridge-engineer?

[Nigel Q. Twatbottom]

Hello!

You are wrong again!

Mostly, you are wrong always!

And you are always mostly wrong!

And usually you are often boring!

Also, nothing you post!

Again!

You are making the words that do not exist!

Please get a book about something, then read it!

Goodbye!

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 25 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 02:11:16 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

> certainly, frequency is defined with respect to the second, but,
> as there is no integral result in that way,

==========================
btw
please don't top-post !!!
===============================
?????!!!
why not integral results ??
a second is a second
you must understand that
had there been no integral or non relativistic elements
even in a relativistic formula
NO SOUND FORMULA COULD BE DONE!!
in more popular explanation
even n a relativistic formula
there must be something to 'hold on the formula
on some sound solid base
or even more popular explanations
if even the foundations are not ''''solid
the hole structure has nothing ;solid
to hang on it
and the bottom conclusion:
in h f
nothing is
relativistic !!
Planck foundit
5 years before relativity

NOTHING was IN HIS **EXPERIENTS*
FROM WHICH IT (h f )--- WAS DERIVED
relativistic !!
AND BTW
mind you
EVEN c IS NOT RELATIVISTIC
IT IS A CONSTANT !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================
===========================

> it has only relative meaning

("-)

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 25 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 05:10:17 UTC+3, מאת Nigel Q. Twatbottom:

=================================
anonymous hired gangster
go discuss with your mother
Y.P
===================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 25 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 14:01:31 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

> בתאריך יום ראשון, 25 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 05:10:17 UTC+3, מאת Nigel Q. Twatbottom:
> > Hello!
> >
> > You are wrong again!
> >
> > Mostly, you are wrong always!
> >
> > And you are always mostly wrong!
> >
> > And usually you are often boring!
> >
> > Also, nothing you post!
> >
> > Again!
> >
> > You are making the words that do not exist!
> >
> > Please get a book about something, then read it!
> >
> > Goodbye!

> > ===================================
anonymous demagogue

just answer my 3 simple questi0ns
and don't smart guy
------------------------------
1
does the photon has *more* energy than defined in h f
2
does the photon has **less * energy than defined in h f
3
does the photon has the exact amount if energy
defined in h f

TIA
Y.Porat
===================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 16 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 17:00:27 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

116 people vied that thread !!''
and no one was decent enough
to answer my above simple (meaning full far going )
) 3 question !!!!
can anyone explain that phenomenon ??
--
is it from lack of honesty
or lack of ability to give cr4dic to ***someone else**
except yourself ???1
may be
bad over egoism that is so abundant here ??
=
TIA
Y.Porat
========================================

[Sam Smith]

shit

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 26 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 17:03:04 UTC+3, מאת Sam Smith:
> shit
=========================================
=thank you
for representing yourself

!!
===================
my name is Porat ..
next!! to human beings
not from Daesh ....

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 26 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 19:04:09 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

=================================
==================================
for serious responsible ***physicists **:

just answer my above 3 simple questions

TIA
Y.Porat
=======================================

[noTthaTguY]

top-posting is just a nicety for readability, because
we all know that both of us have said, essentially,
what we have already said ... although
how, anyonce could get any thing out of your English illiteracy,
is another matter

fh is easily converted to the terms of the secondpower of the speed of light,
or c^2, which has nothing to do
witht he regular tetragon (or skware.

my current thunbnail project is
to put pi into the usual representation of E and m and c, because
the secomndpower of the speed of light is just the areal growth
of the wavefront, per seconnd per seond (or
per secondpowered seconds [sik

> > certainly, frequency is defined with respect to the second, but,
> > as there is no integral result in that way,

> please don't top-post !!

[noTthaTguY]

the speed of waves of light'
wTf is a wave in space, or
what is the medium of propogation, or
of prepropogation

> fh is easily converted to the terms of the secondpower of the speed of light,
> or c^2, which has nothing to do

> with the regular tetragon (or skware.

>
> my current thunbnail project is
> to put pi into the usual representation of E and m and c, because

> the secondpower of the speed of light is just the areal growth
> of the wavefront, per seconnd per second (or

> per secondpowered seconds [sik
>
>
> > > certainly, frequency is defined with respect to the second, but,

[Poutnik]

Waves need medium for propagation,
if they are osculations of medium.

If it is not medium what oscillates,
they need not medium.

For light, it is EM field that oscillates,
and this field is not medium
and need not medium.

Dne 27/09/2016 v 23:09 noTthaTguY napsal(a):

> the speed of waves of light'
> wTf is a wave in space, or
> what is the medium of propogation, or
> of prepropogation

> --
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 28 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 00:09:34 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

=====================
just answer my above simple questions
don't demagogies !!

TIA
Y.Porat
==============================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 28 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 10:11:25 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

==========================
you are right !!
yet still
[;ease answer my above 3 questions
believe e me *and give me some credit

it is very important for some real revolutionary
ADVANCE ICS
=================
TIA
Y.Porat
=================================

[noTthaTguY]

there is however no absolute or pascalian vacuum, but
that was only Pascal's initial ideal, AFAiK;
i.e the redshifting is just because of the medium of free space,
index of refraction is just less that that of air,
1.0003

> For light, it is EM field that oscillates,
> and this field is not medium
> and need not medium.

[Poutnik]

Dne 29/09/2016 v 20:36 noTthaTguY napsal(a):

> there is however no absolute or pascalian vacuum, but
> that was only Pascal's initial ideal, AFAiK;

Sure, there is not, there are vacuum quantum fluctuations.

> i.e the redshifting is just because of the medium of free space,
> index of refraction is just less that that of air,
> 1.0003

You were informed incorrectly.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 29 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 21:46:09 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

=====================
ok
but you still don't anser my op questions:

1
does the photon has more ** energy than h f
2
does the photon has * less energy than h f ?
3
does the photon has exactly the energy defined by h f
====================
(is it such a difficult question ??)
-----
TIA
Y.Porat
=======================

[Odd Bodkin]

On 9/30/2016 10:50 AM, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום חמישי, 29 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 21:46:09 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
>> Dne 29/09/2016 v 20:36 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
>>
>>> there is however no absolute or pascalian vacuum, but
>>> that was only Pascal's initial ideal, AFAiK;
>>
>> Sure, there is not, there are vacuum quantum fluctuations.
>>
>>> i.e the redshifting is just because of the medium of free space,
>>> index of refraction is just less that that of air,
>>> 1.0003
>>
>> You were informed incorrectly.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> =====================
> ok
> but you still don't anser my op questions:
>
> 1
> does the photon has more ** energy than h f

No.

> 2
> does the photon has * less energy than h f ?

No.

> 3
> does the photon has exactly the energy defined by h f

Yes.

> ====================
> (is it such a difficult question ??)

No. In fact someone already answered them. How many responses do you need?

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


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[noTthaTguY]

it is easy to see, mod pi, that
the wavefront expanding at the secondpower of c,
goes through greater & greater quanta of epectromagnetic entities,
commonly known as atoms.

see about the Ampere-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics,
wherein the constant is actually the secondr00t of two TIMES c ... but,
why, I'm not really sure

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 30 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 19:02:52 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

Thank you P D (Bodkin - no matter ho0w do you call yourself)!!
for coming in !!
btw
for a man that discovered some of the most secrets of the Atom
it is not a great problem to identify the
finger prints of a human being 1!
===
at last I got a honest answer from you !!
and not from any one ese in that n g !!
that tell something on other members here !!!!!!!
=====
BTW
I didn't notice that anyone answered it clearly as you !!
----
BUT JUAST NOW COMES THE MORE INTELLIGENT JOB FOR US !!
THE ABOVE MEANS THAT
INORDER TO ANSWR THE ABOVE QUESTION WE MUST DO THE SECOND INTALLIGENT STEP IE
IF h f
IS THE COMPREHANSIVE FORMULA FOR PHOTON ENERGY
WE HAVE TOTAKE IT AS IS
WITHOUT ADDING ON IT
NONSENSE OBFUSCATION ATTITIONS !!
IE
not to add on it
not another pc !!
not another mc^
etc etc etc
because may be you didn't know
ANALYSIS --IS TAKING APPART THE COMPONENETS OF AN ISSUE /OBJECT
AND EXAMIONING IT
PART BY PART !!
----

I o w (in other words )
not to confuse it by mingling deluding deceiving misleading additions on it
ie
for NET !!photons we have to examine
JUST THE FMULA E PHOTON = h f

(full stop !!
again
a a first stage full stop !!
full stop at that point !!
--
and re examining it
it is more than good in order to examine the energy of the photon and
not least -- its sub components
ie
THE MASS IN IT !!!

so now will come the nest honest intelligent important analysis
ir
the **analysis** of
***** physical dimensions of the formula h f
not less not more
------
agreed until this point !!

TIA
Y.Porat
================================

[Poutnik]

Dne 30/09/2016 v 22:50 noTthaTguY napsal(a):

>>>> Sure, there is not, there are vacuum quantum fluctuations.
>>>>
>>>>> i.e the redshifting is just because of the medium of free space,
>>>>> index of refraction is just less that that of air,
>>>>> 1.0003

> it is easy to see, mod pi, that
> the wavefront expanding at the secondpower of c,

What physical quantity has dimension of second power of velocity ?

> goes through greater & greater quanta of epectromagnetic entities,
> commonly known as atoms.
>
> see about the Ampere-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics,
> wherein the constant is actually the secondr00t of two TIMES c ... but,
> why, I'm not really sure
>

Who did you quote text parts not belonging each other ?
Why does your post have a problematic realted to the quote ?

In the intergalactic space there is several atoms per cubic meter
and quantum vacuum between them.

BTW, I am not mod pi.

[pora...@gmail.com]

> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.==================
=======================
to whom you are responding ??
2
don't top post
Y.P
==============================

[Poutnik]

Dne 01/10/2016 v 09:07 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):

> =======================
> to whom you are responding ??
> 2
> don't top post
> Y.P
> ==============================

1/ It is clear from the reply
2/ I do not top post, it was made top-post-like by incorrect quoting.

> AAAAAA
BBBBB
> CCCCC
DDDDD

was quated as

> BBBBB
> > CCCCC

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 08:33:16 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

and more !!
even if as you say that h f is a statistical formula
then still
it is the energy emitted during one second
===
that is why I defined the energy that is emitted during less than a second
as
hf times n while

0> n <<< 1.0000
and still
h is the physical entity
that carries the main properties of the photon energy
so now the main pointy remains
to make the Dimension analysis of h f !!!
right ??
Y.P
=================================

[Poutnik]

Dne 01/10/2016 v 11:39 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):

>> ================================
> and more !!
> even if as you say that h f is a statistical formula
> then still
> it is the energy emitted during one second
> ===

E= h.f is NOT energy emitted during 1 second,
unless there photon emission rate 1 per second.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 16:51:33 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

> Dne 01/10/2016 v 11:39 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >> ================================
> > and more !!
> > even if as you say that h f is a statistical formula
> > then still
> > it is the energy emitted during one second
> > ===
>
> E= h.f is NOT energy emitted during 1 second,
> unless there photon emission rate 1 per second.

===================================
???????
sorry
so h f is the energy emitted in one second
wile f is a scalar per one second
so ""
let us see you dimension analysis
of the formula
E = h f

TIA
Y.Porat
=================
>

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 21:03:18 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

Poutnic and Bodkin
are dead scared to make a dimension analysis
of the photon energy formula
do you know why ??...
so I will help them a bit :==

E photon is h f
h f is = 6.6exp-34 KILOGRAM METER ^2/SECOND ^2
TIMES A SCALR FIURE
full stop
now comes the question for
(NOT LEAST )decent cleaver human beings
and the question is :

WHERE (THE HELL /THE F )) YOU SEE IN THE ABOVE FAMOUS FORMULA ANY
ZERO FIGURE ??
OR RELATIVISTIC ENTITY (multiplier ??)??

-TO MULTIPLY THOSE **KILOGRAM (MASS )** BUY THOSE MENTIONED ABOVE
UNSEEN UNFOUND ENTITIES ???!!
====================
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================


> >

[Poutnik]

Dne 01/10/2016 v 20:03 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):

> בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 16:51:33 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

>> E= h.f is NOT energy emitted during 1 second,
>> unless there photon emission rate 1 per second.

> so h f is the energy emitted in one second

No, h.f is an energy of 1 photon.

> wile f is a scalar per one second
> so ""
> let us see you dimension analysis
> of the formula
> E = h f
>

E[J] = h[J.s] . f[s^-1]

h = 6.626070040(81)×10−34 J.s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

Simple, eh ?

[Poutnik]

Dne 02/10/2016 v 07:24 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):

>> =================
> Poutnic and Bodkin
> are dead scared to make a dimension analysis
> of the photon energy formula
> do you know why ??...
> so I will help them a bit :==
>
> E photon is h f
> h f is = 6.6exp-34 KILOGRAM METER ^2/SECOND ^2
> TIMES A SCALR FIURE
> full stop

E[J] = h[J.s] . f[s^-1]

h = 6.626070040(81)×10−34 J.s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

Simple, eh ?

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 2 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 09:11:38 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

> Dne 01/10/2016 v 20:03 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> > בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 16:51:33 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
>
> >> E= h.f is NOT energy emitted during 1 second,
> >> unless there photon emission rate 1 per second.
>
> > so h f is the energy emitted in one second
>
> No, h.f is an energy of 1 photon.

=======================
imbecile parrot !!!

f is a whole one second !!

go to your light switch
turn it on and off during
1/10 second !!!

DO YOU GET LIGHT IE PHOTONS EMITION
DURING LESS THAN ONE SECOND ?????!!!!!!!
some shocking mews for you

if you will turn it on even for
1/0.000001 second
you still will have created photons !!!
GOT IT DUMB PARROT ??

TIA
Y.Porat
=============================

[Poutnik]

Dne 02/10/2016 v 11:08 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):
>
> =======================
> imbecile parrot !!!

I am reflecting this on your funny fundamental ignorance.

>
> f is a whole one second !!

f as frequency = 1 / T
where T[s] is period of periodic event.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 2 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 12:58:35 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

> Dne 02/10/2016 v 11:08 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >
> > =======================
> > imbecile parrot !!!
>
> I am reflecting this on your funny fundamental ignorance.
> >
> > f is a whole one second !!
>
> f as frequency = 1 / T
> where T[s] is period of periodic event.

===========================
I am doing myself to be polite ....
I did thee above analysis in the
M K S system of units

t/T is not just an undefined legth of time

frequency is a very definite concept
in h f
it is
number of wave cycles PER ONE!! (( JUST *** ONE SECOND( !!!
1/60 hour !!

FUL STOP

got it??
we are not in literature
we are in a very accurate science
if you are say a student
I can understand your remarks
are you
TIA
Y.Porat
=================================
>

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 2 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 15:33:16 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

sorry typo!!
a second is
1/60 of a minute
(not an hour )

Y.P
==============================

[noTthaTguY]

it seems that Poutnik is a retired engineer,
just as you say that you are, but
he obviously has a better grasp of English than you do,
even though it is not his native language,
like you.

yes, frequency is jut the reciprocal of period, and
period is the reciprocal of frequency, end of dyscussion ...
but time for you to study in your language

> > f as frequency = 1 / T
> > where T[s] is period of periodic event.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 06:30:12 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:

================
typo
1/60 of a second!!

====================
nowit is the time ..
for you to know that
t in physics
is the dimension of time

IN ALL DIMENSION SYSTEMS !!
so
just answer the more important question
WHERE IN HF YOU FIND
ANYTHING
TO MULTIPLY THE KILOGRAMS THER
OR BY SERO
OR BYANY RELATIVISTIC MULTIPLYER ??
==========================
and since you know anything on anyone
please tell us

WHAT IS YOUR REAL IDENTITY ??
=============================
TIA
Y.Porat
===========================
=====================

[Poutnik]

Dne 03/10/2016 v 05:30 noTthaTguY napsal(a):

> it seems that Poutnik is a retired engineer,

No, I was graduated at faculty of science,
and have still at least 15 years to retirement.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 09:03:27 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

> Dne 03/10/2016 v 05:30 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> > it seems that Poutnik is a retired engineer,
>
> No, I was graduated at faculty of science,
> and have still at least 15 years to retirement.
>

========================
==============================================================
ok thanks
you are about 50
----------------------------------
if so
why don't you answer my simple question
==
I gave you the dimension analysis of hf
Bodkin admitted just above
that it is a comprehensive formula
to define the energy of the photon
ie
no need to add on it anything as defining photon energy
=
2
that formula contains the Kilogram Mass
now
where** the hell**
you see in that formula
ANYTHING TO MULTIPLY THAT KILOGRAM MASS
BY ANY ZERO FIGURE
OR
BY ANY RELATIVISTIC MULTIPLYER ??!!!

is it so difficult to answer that ??
==============================================
old 'Catto' said endless time

============================================
NO MASS - ***THE ONLY MASS** !!-NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
==============================================

TIA
Y.Porat
============================

[Poutnik]

On 10/03/2016 10:32 AM, pora...@gmail.com wrote:

> why don't you answer my simple question
> ==
> I gave you the dimension analysis of hf

..and I am still wondering
why you cannot get such a simple thing >

E[J] = h[J.s] . f[1/s]
where [J] = [kg . m . m / s / s ]

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 13:05:59 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

=======================
so ??
again
where do you see in it
a zero multiplier for the kg there
2
where do you see a relativistic multiplier
to the mass there
================
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================

[Poutnik]

Dne 03/10/2016 v 19:56 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):

There is no zero multiplier for kg,
nor there is any relativistic multiplier.

You see ghosts where there is none.

[rbrt...@gmail.com]

kilogram-secondpowermeters-persecond-persecond (or
secondpowerperseconds; I mean,
1/s/s just doesn't do it, for me

> >> E[J] = h[J.s] . f[1/s]
> >> where [J] = [kg . m . m / s / s ]

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 21:45:08 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

> Dne 03/10/2016 v 19:56 pora...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> > בתאריך יום שני, 3 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 13:05:59 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
> >> On 10/03/2016 10:32 AM, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > why don't you answer my simple question
> >> > ==
> >> > I gave you the dimension analysis of hf
> >>
> >> ..and I am still wondering
> >> why you cannot get such a simple thing >
> >>
> >> E[J] = h[J.s] . f[1/s]
> >> where [J] = [kg . m . m / s / s ]
> >
> >
> > =======================
> > so ??
> > again
> > where do you see in it
> > a zero multiplier for the kg there
> > 2
> > where do you see a relativistic multiplier
> > to the mass there
> > ================
>
> There is no zero multiplier for kg,
> nor there is any relativistic multiplier.
>

>=====================================
=======================================================
Does you r ear here what your mouth say !!
in E = h f

there is no zero F en multiplayer for the mass
there
nor
F en relativistic multiplier !!
for that Mass
====
for semi intelligent people - that is enough
to prove my above op title
=================================

h f = E
IS A SIMPLE PROVE THAT 'RELATIVISTIC MASS - IS NONSENSE PHYSICS !!

Q E D
QUNNDUM EST DEMONSTRADUM !!

and much more wide
===========================================
NO MASS' THE ***ONLY MASS*** =NO REAL PHYSICS !!
===========================================
historic break through In modern physics
=======
said old '''Catto''
======
Y.Porat
=====================

[Poutnik]

then try again, or reformulate what you have said..

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 12:08:07 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:

==========================
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS A CONSTANT !!!!
( BLOCKHEAD IDIOT PARROT (
sorry forcing me to be rude ...
2
E=h f
was created 5 years before any relativity
noting in the experimental tools that were used to get h f
was relativistic !!

TIA
Y.Porat
================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 13:08:54 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

now before our audients are falling asleep
I will lift for you a ball for a smash
THE DOPPLER EFECT ..

how about it ??

TIA
Y.Porat
================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 15:08:01 UTC+3, מאת pora...@gmail.com:

so ??
no body has something cleaver to say about it ??

TIA
Y.Porat
====================================

[noTthaTguY]

I have ne'er seen, how to impose the unit
in such a notion of "per sedond per second,
as a simple matter of fractionization ... fractally,
the mini-M-sets are floatingpoint fluff

[pora...@gmail.com]

=====
Energy is
meter ^2/second^2

no one deny it
except the above genius anonymous
2
if you have some cleaver ideas how
the Doppler effect can be fitted in to my claims
or contradicting my above
just come in and shoot

TIA
Y.Porat
==============================

[pora...@gmail.com]

sorry
typo
energy is
Kilogram Meter ^2/Second^2
=====

TIA
Y.Porat
==============================

[Poutnik]

what is so complicated on [m/s/s] as acceleration of dimension ?
It is (m/s)/s

[Poutnik]

Errata: :-D

> what is so complicated on [m/s/s] as dimension of acceleration ?

[pora...@gmail.com]

=======================
energy id not meter/second
it id
Kilogram meter ^2
/second ^2
in h f
there is nothing to multiply the*** Mass**
not by any zero
not by any relativistic multiplier !!
--
you could do much better
by raising the
Doppler effect ...

Y.Porat
==========================






> >

[Poutnik]

On 10/06/2016 08:02 PM, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 8:02:08 PM UTC+3, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Errata: :-D
>>
>> > what is so complicated on [m/s/s] as dimension of acceleration ?
>>
>> On 10/06/2016 06:59 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>> what is so complicated on [m/s/s] as acceleration of dimension ?
>>> It is (m/s)/s
> =======================
> energy id not meter/second

I have not said dimension of energy is m/s.

> it id
> Kilogram meter ^2
> /second ^2
> in h f

I have said it already several times here.

[pora...@gmail.com]

==================
so why the F you don't answer my key questio0n
=====================
WHERE THE HWELL YOU SEE IN
H F (OR H BAR ) OR ANY OF YOUR CEOOCKED VERSIONS
OF IT

ANY ZERO MULTIPLYER
OR ANY RELATIVISTIC MULTIPLYER
TO THE MASS ENTITY ???!!!!!
IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR HONEST CLEAVER
PHYSICISTS
TO ANSWER SUCH A SIMPLE QUESTION ??!!
why do you keep
'walking around and around the bush ''' !!!
===
may be it is in the Doppler effect ???
(that could make our issue
much wider and more innovative and interesting ???
TIA
Y.Porat
===========================


TIA
Y.Porat
================


TIA
Y.Porat
=======================

[pora...@gmail.com]

may be I will help you a bit:

suppose you are standing in a train station
an engine is approaching you
ans hooting
as it goes on
the sound of hoot
is changing
along
coming to you or leaving you
on your stationary position
is it a relativistic effect
2
is there some multiplication
relativistic factor on some Mass !!

TIA
Y.Porat
=======================