A newcorrected formula for the dfinition of a *single photon*energy emissin
Y.Porat
to define the real single photon energy emission:
E (single photn) =n h f
while n must be limited inside the flowing range:
0 < n <<<< 1.000
the explanation inshort is that
th ecurrent definition hf
is not of a real single photon energy definition
f is number of wave lengths /PER SECOND !
it is a scalar but stuil one second defined
one second is a humen arbitrary definition
while
IN REALITY WE FIND PHOTONS THAT ARE
MUCH SORT TIME THAN ONE SECOND!!--
emission
in that case we get
a 'half' , a 'quarter'' etc etc of a *single photon*
which is nonsense !
sowe must look for a smaller singl ephoton definition
that will cover the real cases in which
shorther than one second photons are found
in reality
and it must be shorther than the current
one second
if so i introduced a limiting diminishing
scalar factor
to cover' the cases of shorther time duration
of photon activity
so it is why i defined it as
smalelr than 1.000
but bigger than zero
indeed that is not a specific one defintion
it is
a *range* of possible numbers
because
the real *single photon *
*was never until now ever defined properly !!
2
more explanations and discussions and disputes about it
are found in another thread of mine called
'A copyright question' !!
3
this insight is revolutionary since it is
for instance
refutes the QM paradigm that
a single photon can interfere with itself
(which is BTW another nonsense )
4
later i might even suggest my guess about
what might be the *smallest single photon*
energy emission
5
that insight and understanding
can among the others r explain better the
red shift phenomenon of photons
(which as well ,was given and explained in by other above me ntioned
thread )
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Uncle Al
>
> Here is my corrected new formula
> to define the real single photon energy emission:
1) "�ber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes
betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt," Annalen der Physik 17 132
(1905).
2) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > Here is my corrected new formula
> > to define the real single photon energy emission:
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> 1) " ber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes
> betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt," Annalen der Physik 17 132
> (1905).
> 2) idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
old imbecile senile diamond inventor
and HAND WAVER !
1
speak English
2
bring exact formulation
and formulas
3
bring vast explanations as i did
4
in short
speak physics !!
in a human behavior way !!
got it old pain in the neck
senile disturbed farther ??
Y.Porat
----------------------------
artful
> Here is my corrected new formula
> to define the real single photon energy emission:
>
> E (single photn) =n h f
You stole that from me .. I copyrighted it in a reply in your other
post
> while n must be limited inside the flowing range:
>
> 0 < n <<<< 1.000
>
> the explanation inshort is that
> th ecurrent definition hf
> is not of a real single photon energy definition
WRONG .. it is
> f is number of wave lengths /PER SECOND !
Yes.
> it is a scalar but stuil one second defined
Nope. It doesn't require there to be a second .. anymore than a speed
of 60km/hr only applies to things lasting an hour. The particular
value of f depends on the units of measure .. NOT on the time taken.
> one second is a humen arbitrary definition
Irrelevant.
> while
> IN REALITY WE FIND PHOTONS THAT ARE
> MUCH SORT TIME THAN ONE SECOND!!--
Of course they are .. it is instantaneous (oe at least within a single
quanta of time)
> emission
>
> in that case we get
> a 'half' , a 'quarter'' etc etc of a *single photon*
> which is nonsense !
It is nonsense .. but you are the only one making that nonsense
claim. Physics does NOT claim that at all
> sowe must look for a smaller singl ephoton definition
We already have one. YOu just can't understand what physics says now
> that will cover the real cases in which
> shorther than one second photons are found
> in reality
of course they are .. and how long they last makes NO DIFFERENCE to
the energy each photon carries
> and it must be shorther than the current
> one second
Photons are not defined over a period of one second currently. Only
in your uninformed senile old brain.
> if so i introduced a limiting diminishing
> scalar factor
> to cover' the cases of shorther time duration
> of photon activity
Which is not needed
> so it is why i defined it as
> smalelr than 1.000
> but bigger than zero
>
> indeed that is not a specific one defintion
> it is
> a *range* of possible numbers
> because
> the real *single photon *
> *was never until now ever defined properly !!
Nonsense. It has long before you been defined properly. You're just
posting nonsense
> 2
> more explanations and discussions and disputes about it
> are found in another thread of mine called
> 'A copyright question' !!
Where I copyrighted the formula you just stole
> 3
> this insight is revolutionary
No .. its jsut stupid
> since it is
> for instance
> refutes the QM paradigm that
> a single photon can interfere with itself
It does no such thing.
> (which is BTW another nonsense )
iow something ELSE you cannot understand
> 4
> later i might even suggest my guess about
> what might be the *smallest single photon*
> energy emission
We already know. It is E = hf
> 5
> that insight and understanding
> can among the others r explain better the
> red shift phenomenon of photons
Which does not need to be explained 'better'
> (which as well ,was given and explained in by other above me ntioned
> thread )
Nope .. you never explain anything .. you rant and assert.
artful
> On Feb 26, 6:47 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > Here is my corrected new formula
> > > to define the real single photon energy emission:
>
> > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > 1) " ber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes
> > betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt," Annalen der Physik 17 132
> > (1905).
> > 2) idiot
>
> > --
> > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
>
> old imbecile senile diamond inventor
> and HAND WAVER !
He was correct .. you're an idiot.
> 1
> speak English
Why .. you can't seem to type it
> 2
> bring exact formulation
> and formulas
E = hf
> 3
> bring vast explanations as i did
You didn't bring ANY explanation.
> 4
> in short
> speak physics !!
You NEVER do
> in a human behavior way !!
You don't know what decent 'human' behaviour is .. or if you do, you
don't exhibit it
> got it old pain in the neck
> senile disturbed farther ??
Fuck off you stupid old cunt.
weesly
> On Feb 27, 4:43 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip loads of crap, unread]
hey fartful, you are so stooopid you never
contribute
you are afraid to be proved stoopid as you
been proved so many times before
please contribute
BWAHAHAHAHA
thanks
Y.y.Porat
the mafia pigs morons
Inertial and Shit ful
diverted my respons to the palce they belong ie
sci .morons
that is another prove that we deal here with a piggs magfia
so here is my reply to
Weesly
-------------------------
On Feb 28, 12:00 pm, weesly <vli...@free.metalindex.hu> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "weesly" <vli...@free.metalindex.hu> wrote in message
>
> >news:c7f937a3-62dc-42e2...@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Feb 28, 4:17 am, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 27, 4:43 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip loads of crap, unread]
>
> > > hey fartful, you are so stooopid you never
> > > contribute
>
> > Wrong
>
> [rest of crap snipped, unread]
>
> you don't cut relativity in small pieces, you
> can't follow a theory
>
> fartful, you are so stoopid, thank you very much
>
> good bye
--------------------
Thank you weesly !!
at lase we meet here
another opinion
and
someone that is not
in the crooks moron pigs Mafia !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
so here is my response to that Mafia
and to someone that does not belong there
ie Weesly
Thank you again Weesly
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
> > thread )
>
> Nope .. you never explain anything .. you rant and assert.
Dear honorable Artful (ie you are ful of art...)
one month ago you claimed that
the paradigmatic formula hf
is the definition of a single phootn
IT IS RECORDED AND NO PIG SHIT
CAN DENY WHAT IS RECORDED!!
later after long explanations of mine
(and that is recorded as well
you changed your mind and said that
the definitionm of a single photon energy
is
e single photon energy = n h f
nice
so please tell us what is THE
SCOPE
OF VALUES THAT THIS ' n ' of yours-
CAN GET
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
Artful is afraid to tell us his
secrets of 'his' genius formula
E= n h f
he even added that it was long ago known
may be 80 years ago .....
(the PD trick ...(:-))
so
E = n h f
what is that n
and more important
what is the *numeric scope* of that 'n' of his
(:-)
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Y.Porat
suddenly Artful Artshit disappeared !!
(under my questions )
Y.P
-----------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60831313-5138-4d6e...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Typical Porat insult instead of addressing physics
> (under my questions )
You don't scare me, old man. And your questions certainly don't
> Y.P
> -----------------------
>
I'm still here .. but using my 'inertial' account that I use at home,
instead of my 'artful' one that i have to use when away.
However, my replies have not been getting thru due to your spamming so many
newsgroups that my news server won't let me reply. So i'll reply again
after culling the list.
--
The explanation I posted and copyrighted was simply done to preempt you
doing so .. I copyrighted it first.
I immediately showed it was nonsense (just like what you are saying) by
refuting it.
There has been no change of mind on my part.
E = hf is still the energy of a SINGLE PHOTON. There is no time duration in
that formula because the energy of a SINGLE PHOTON is NOT dependent on time
duration. Further, single photons are not made up of 'smaller' photons.
Single photons are NOT defined in terms of a duration of a second AT ALL.
It doesn't matter if a photon last ONE second or TWO seconds or A MILLION
SECONDS or a MILLIONTH of a second. Its energy is still the same and
related to the frequency of the EMR by E = hf.
The energy you may receive from a light source over time is the sum of the
energies of each photon (E = hf) that arrive during that time. So it is
dependent on the photon arrival rate and the duration.
All very simple. Why can't you understand it?
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
================
ok so now we know that
crook imbecile No one
is the sameas crook No 2
ie
one crook with many names
that is by itself including the magnanimosity pig
behaviour is come to a fukl picture of a shit human being
why shuld a pig shit like you
use two names AT THE SAME TIME??!!
it i s obvious !!
because you wanted to pose
a cheated scene
as if there are two different
people who that think the same as you !!!
that is prove No 2
for a pig shit crook psychopath gangster behavior !!!
--------------
and now to my question
WHAT IS THE NUMERIC SCOPE OF YOUR
n
IN THE FORMULA
E=n h f
amd why dId you adde it
to the hf formula
FOR THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE!!
AGAIN SINGLE
AGAIN SINGLE
PHOTON ENERGY !!!
2
we find in nature photons
THAT LAST (are active- you name it )--LESS THAN A SECOND
GOT IT IMBECILE CROOK Pig ??
and experimentally
a car that is heated by the sun
one second
gets less energy and less temperature rise
THAN A CAR THE IS STANDING IN THE SUN
DURING ONE HOUR
DO YOU DENY IT imbecile PIGGY crook psychopath ??!!!
do you think that al readers are piggs
imbeciles like you
**there should not be something simpler than that to answer **!!
unless if you are a pig shit imbecile psychopath
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------
Y.Porat
and do you say that the above phenomenon
is not time dependent !!!
> do you think that al readers are piggs
> imbeciles like you
>
> **there should not be something simpler than that to answer **!!
> unless if you are a pig shit imbecile psychopath
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------
and moreover
we know by experience that there are
photons that are active along **less*** than a second
so??
is a photon that is active 1/2 second
a single photon ?
and a photon that is active during 1.000000 second-
-- ***a single** photon as well !!!
actually i dont expect sane answers form little piggy
i just want to show to the other readers that
Artful - Inertial - and the real pigs name
(whatever it is ) -- of that imbecile
is not only an imbecile
but much worse !!--
a shameless crook as well !!!
Y.P
--------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Robert Higgins
Hey, the Romans used THREE names at one time.
> it i s obvious !!
>
> because you wanted to pose
> a cheated scene
> as if there are two different
> people who that think the same as you !!!
There are many people who think the same - we call these people
"Scientists"
>
> that is prove No 2
> for a pig shit crook psychopath gangster behavior !!!
Couldn't fit any more insults on one line?
>
> --------------
>
> and now to my question
>
> WHAT IS THE NUMERIC SCOPE OF YOUR
> n
> IN THE FORMULA
> E=n h f
n is a positive integer.
> amd why dId you adde it
> to the hf formula
> FOR THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE!!
> AGAIN SINGLE
> AGAIN SINGLE
> PHOTON ENERGY !!!
For a single photon, obviously, n=1.
> 2
> we find in nature photons
> THAT LAST (are active- you name it )--LESS THAN A SECOND
> GOT IT IMBECILE CROOK Pig ??
We also find photons that "last" much longer. Photons from the sun
take like 8.3 minutes. They obviously last more than half a second....
> and experimentally
> a car that is heated by the sun
> one second
> gets less energy and less temperature rise
> THAN A CAR THE IS STANDING IN THE SUN
> DURING ONE HOUR
No shit - in one hour, it gets hit with 3600 times as many photons
(assuming constant output) than in one second. And they let you design
bridges that people were actually going to use?
>
> DO YOU DENY IT imbecile PIGGY crook psychopath ??!!!
> do you think that al readers are piggs
> imbeciles like you
This little piggy went to market.
This little piggy stayed home.
This little piggy ate roast beef.
This little piggy had none.
This little piggy got fried by gamma ray photons for an hour, and died
a horrible death.
Inertial
No .. but your response shows what sort of a nasty disturbed individual you
are. Get psychological help.
I explained that I have been away from home and had to use a different
account. I'm back and can use my usual one again. There is nothing
dishonest about it
>> --------------
>>
>> and now to my question
>>
>> WHAT IS THE NUMERIC SCOPE OF YOUR
>> n
>> IN THE FORMULA
>> E=n h f
it depends .. do you mean in the valid one, where n is the number of photons
hitting the surface, and so the total energy is E = nhf?
Or do you mean in the bogus explanation I copyrighted (before you) that says
there is a smallest possible photon (with smallest frequency) and other
photons are made up of this smallest one, in which case it is a number of
photons in the larger photon. Or equivalently, it can mean that if f is the
frequency pf a given large photon, then n h f is the frequency of the
smallest photon that makes it up where m is between 0 and 1 and 1/n is the
number of small photons in the big one.
But the above paragraph is all just nonsense, as I refuted it
>> amd why dId you adde it
>> to the hf formula
>> FOR THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE!!
To make a nonsense 'explanation' (to copyright) and then show to be
nonsense.
>> AGAIN SINGLE
>> AGAIN SINGLE
>> PHOTON ENERGY !!!
As I have said all along (and continue to say) .. the energy of a single
photon is E = hf
>> 2
>> we find in nature photons
>> THAT LAST (are active- you name it )--LESS THAN A SECOND
>> GOT IT IMBECILE CROOK Pig ??
No. A photon lasts for a fraction of a second, or a second or millions of
years.
>> and experimentally
>> a car that is heated by the sun
>> one second
>> gets less energy and less temperature rise
>> THAN A CAR THE IS STANDING IN THE SUN
>> DURING ONE HOUR
Ofcourse .. as I have said all along, the energy you receive from (say)
sunlight is the total energy of al lthe photons arriving. There energy from
EACH photon is E = hf. The total over a period of time t would be E = rthf,
where r is the rate of photon arrival per second, and t is the number of
seconds.
>> DO YOU DENY IT imbecile PIGGY crook psychopath ??!!!
I heve have denied it. I have explained the SAME THING from my frist
replies here. it is the nonsense conclusions you fdraw from it that I deny.
> and do you say that the above phenomenon
> is not time dependent !!!
Of course the energy from multiple photons hitting an object over time is
time dependent. THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU
>> do you think that al readers are piggs
>> imbeciles like you
The only pigg imbecile is you, Porat. You prove it with every post.
>> **there should not be something simpler than that to answer **!!
I have been telling your this piost after post .. and you KEEP ASKING THE
SAME QUESTIONS. Why bother asking if you DON'T READ.
>> unless if you are a pig shit imbecile psychopath
I'm not like you
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> -------------
>
> and moreover
> we know by experience that there are
> photons that are active along **less*** than a second
> so??
Photons can be 'active' for any length of time.
However, the actual emission takes place in an instant and the release of
energy when the photon is destroyed takes an instant.
The energy required to create a photon is E = hf .. the energy the photon
releases is E = hf
> is a photon that is active 1/2 second
> a single photon ?
Of course it is
> and a photon that is active during 1.000000 second-
> -- ***a single** photon as well !!!
Of course it is
> actually i dont expect sane answers form little piggy
> i just want to show to the other readers that
> Artful - Inertial - and the real pigs name
> (whatever it is ) -- of that imbecile
> is not only an imbecile
> but much worse !!--
> a shameless crook as well !!!
Again .. what you show to the other readers (if any) is what a nasty piece
of work you are . Get psychological help.
Inertial
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ade6aec-af77-492c...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
HEHEEHE .. love your poetry :)). Ad thanks for backing me up. I wonder
what the odds are that Porat will now claim that you and I are the same
person :):) You do realize that Porat is mentally ill .. no sane person
could behave as he does.
Robert Higgins
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I know... I've had long-running threads with him. My favorite is his
"lowest frequency photon" - it is like an Abbott and Costello routine.
Of course, it's hopeless trying to teach him anything, but I feel
unloved if I am not called Joseph Goebbels (and, for all his
obsession, he can never spell the name correctly).
Inertial
Yeup. He's always amusing .. pathetic, but amusing.
I replied in his other recent thread here with a copyrighted-by-me
'explanation' of a how a photon is composed of multiples of a minimum
frequency photon and then immediately refuted it, because it is nonsense.
> Of course, it's hopeless trying to teach him anything, but I feel
> unloved if I am not called Joseph Goebbels (and, for all his
> obsession, he can never spell the name correctly).
I always laughed at being called a 'bump parasite' .. its hilarious, because
he thinks it actually means something.
Y.Porat
wrote:
---------------------
another psychopth moron croook around the table!!
we dont mindf how long a photon is tarvelling from the sun
we do mind
how long it is acting after comming to earth!!
if you sat that a single photon is hf
then n h f is not a single photon
so ??
why the fuck you ahve to ad that
n
TO THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOTON !!
got it imbecile??
see the title of this thread!!
we define a single photon
just a single one !!!
siobviously (for sane people)
to say that hf is a single photon
AND TO SAY THAT n f IS AS WELL
THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOOTN
IS STUPIDITY
that only a 'professor of physics
like Roberts ans the other robbers
can say!!
now the pig shit Inartial Artful Feurebacher
(you name it his realname of the crook)
so he saied that he preceded me by defining
a single photon!!!
if the definition of a single photon is hf
it cannot be
nhf at the same time
so al lof us sane people agree that
n h f
if a definition of ** MANY SINGLE PHOTONS**
even th emoron crook Roberts understood it
soif it is trhe definition of many phootns
IT IS NOT ** THE DEFINITION
OF A SINGLE PHOTON
so inertial turned to be a psychopath lier!!
2
now
we know and can prove that photon
deposition of their energy
is
TIME DEPENDENT !!
take a photoelectric cell
and light it by light not eben by sun!!
say from a light torch( with a specific wave length)
for --- HALF A SECOND
you will get a stream of electrons
that you can detect and measure
right ??
and you will find that this *stream of electrons*
lasted **not more* than half a second
now
light it 1/10 of a second (with the same
light source ) torch as above)
and the stream of electron will last
the same time as in the previous case??
or
*much less than half a second *
right ??
so now:
is emission of **PHOTON ENERGY**
again **emission* of photon energy *
(we dont mind how long it was *created*
but how long it lasted while hitting a stationary target !)
IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT !! ???!!!
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
now a quation to you Mr Robberts
9th eprofessonr of chemistry (:-))
Inertial
No .. the only one here is you
> we dont mindf how long a photon is tarvelling from the sun
That's right
> we do mind
> how long it is acting after comming to earth!!
In an instant
> if you sat that a single photon is hf
It is
> then n h f is not a single photon
It is n lots of single photons
> so ??
> why the fuck you ahve to ad that
> n
> TO THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOTON !!
Nothing at all.
E = hf is the energy of a SINGLE PHOTON. It svery simple.. I don't know why
you can't understand it
> got it imbecile??
Clearly you don't
> see the title of this thread!!
Yes.. its a lie
> we define a single photon
> just a single one !!!
E = hf is the energy of a SINGLE PHOTON .. just a SINGLE ONE !!!
> siobviously (for sane people)
> to say that hf is a single photon
It is
> AND TO SAY THAT n f IS AS WELL
It isn't
> THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOOTN
> IS STUPIDITY
You'd know all about stupidty .. it s the one thing you're good at
> that only a 'professor of physics
> like Roberts ans the other robbers
> can say!!
He agrees that E = nf is the energy of a single photon
> now the pig shit Inartial Artful Feurebacher
Not my name
> (you name it his realname of the crook)
Its not
> so he saied that he preceded me by defining
> a single photon!!!
Yeup .. I put up a copyrighted definition of a single photon based on
multiples of a smallest photon. I then showed that such a definition is
nonsense
> if the definition of a single photon is hf
It is
> it cannot be
> nhf at the same time
It isn't
> so al lof us sane people agree that
> n h f
> if a definition of ** MANY SINGLE PHOTONS**
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU !!!
> even th emoron crook Roberts understood it
> soif it is trhe definition of many phootns
Of course it is
> IT IS NOT ** THE DEFINITION
> OF A SINGLE PHOTON
Of course it isn't
> so inertial turned to be a psychopath lier!!
Nope . .because I never said it was. I put forward a nonsesical
'exaplanation' compatible with what you wer esaying and proved it was
onsense.
I have NEVER EVER EVER claimed the energy of a single photon is other than E
= hf. Anyone who says I have, is a blatant liar and a cheat. That would be
you, Porat. You are always lying about what people have said or have done.
You are despicable.
> 2
> now
> we know and can prove that photon
> deposition of their energy
> is
> TIME DEPENDENT !!
You HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT AT ALL !!
> take a photoelectric cell
> and light it by light not eben by sun!!
> say from a light torch( with a specific wave length)
> for --- HALF A SECOND
Fine
> you will get a stream of electrons
No .. photons
> that you can detect and measure
> right ??
Photons .. yes. The longer it shines, the more photons you get. THAT IS
WHAT I TOLD YOU IN YOUR OTHER THREAD. You didn't believe it
> and you will find that this *stream of electrons*
PHOTONS !! .. not electrons
> lasted **not more* than half a second
The stream does. not the individual photons. They last howver long it takes
for the light to get from the torch to the detector .. not very long
> now
> light it 1/10 of a second (with the same
> light source ) torch as above)
> and the stream of electron will last
>
> the same time as in the previous case??
The STREAM lasts for a shorter time. . Each photon lasts for EXACTLY the
same time
> or
>
> *much less than half a second *
> right ??
The STREAM lasts for a shorter time. . Each photon lasts for EXACTLY the
same time
> so now:
>
> is emission of **PHOTON ENERGY**
> again **emission* of photon energy *
> (we dont mind how long it was *created*
> but how long it lasted while hitting a stationary target !)
>
> IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT !! ???!!!
Not for a single photon (as you have claimed). The total energy for a
STREAM of photons IS time dependent because the longer the stream is
'shining', the more photons are arriving and EACH OF THEM has energy E = hf.
So for a stream you get E = rthf, where r is the rate of arrival of photons
in the stream and t is the time duration that we are considering.
This is so INCREDIBLY SIMPLE, I just can't understand why any sane person
cannot understand it. But then .. we all know you are FAR from sane.
Robert Higgins
You really like the letter "o"!
>
> we dont mindf how long a photon is tarvelling from the sun
> we do mind
> how long it is acting after comming to earth!!
How long it is acting? If the photon causes an electronic transition,
the time involved is on the order of 10 ^-15 s.
It takes a really disturbed person to "mind" a photon. How DARE that
photon act up!
>
> if you sat that a single photon is hf
> then n h f is not a single photon
> so ??
> why the fuck you ahve to ad that
Don't use the f-word with me. The f-word often gets the k-word
response ("knuckles").
> n
> TO THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOTON !!
> got it imbecile??
You're the twit who can't understand 1st year college chemistry/
physics/math.
> see the title of this thread!!
> we define a single photon
> just a single one !!!
You mean as in "one"????????
> siobviously (for sane people)
> to say that hf is a single photon
> AND TO SAY THAT n f IS AS WELL
> THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOOTN
> IS STUPIDITY
> that only a 'professor of physics
> like Roberts ans the other robbers
> can say!!
> now the pig shit Inartial Artful Feurebacher
> (you name it his realname of the crook)
God, you are insane...
> so he saied that he preceded me by defining
> a single photon!!!
> if the definition of a single photon is hf
> it cannot be
> nhf at the same time
Sure it can - if n=1.
> so al lof us sane people agree that
> n h f
> if a definition of ** MANY SINGLE PHOTONS**
> even th emoron crook Roberts understood it
> soif it is trhe definition of many phootns
>
> IT IS NOT ** THE DEFINITION
> OF A SINGLE PHOTON
But what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is HAPPILY PARTNERED?
(Not that there is anything WRONG with that!)
> so inertial turned to be a psychopath lier!!
> 2
> now
> we know and can prove that photon
> deposition of their energy
> is
> TIME DEPENDENT !!
The time period is less than 10^-15 s for electronic transitions.
> take a photoelectric cell
Please!
> and light it by light not eben by sun!!
I love to light lights by light and not by sun. Sometimes my son suns
himself by sun. She sells seashells by the seashore.
> say from a light torch( with a specific wave length)
How about a flashlight instead? Or a flat's
> for --- HALF A SECOND
> you will get a stream of electrons
> that you can detect and measure
> right ??
Maybe - depends on the work function of the surface. OF course, this
is because the surface is hit by a STREAM of photons, not just ONE.
>
> and you will find that this *stream of electrons*
> lasted **not more* than half a second
> now
> light it 1/10 of a second (with the same
> light source ) torch as above)
> and the stream of electron will last
>
> the same time as in the previous case??
> or
>
> *much less than half a second *
> right ??
Probably really close to 1/10 of a second.
> so now:
>
> is emission of **PHOTON ENERGY**
> again **emission* of photon energy *
> (we dont mind how long it was *created*
> but how long it lasted while hitting a stationary target !)
If sufficiently energetic photons hit a metal surface for a time t,
electrons will be ejected for roughly a time t. No shit. This is only
true for the photoelectric effect, though.
Have the same stream of photons hit a phosphorescent molecule, and
photons will be continue to be emitted for many seconds.
>
> IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT !! ???!!!
Learn the difference between Photon (one) and Photons (more than one).
For EACH photon, once it reaches an atom, if it interacts at all, will
interact for an extremely short period of time, roughly 10^-15 s
(assuming the photon causes an electronic transition).
Y.Porat
> > soif it is trhe definition of many phootns
>
> Nope . .because I never said it was. I put forward a nonsesical
>
> read more »
-----------------
nazi pigg psychopath imbecile lier:
if hf is the definition of a single phootn
why did you say
and like a dumb monky
jumt and said you have a copyright suggestion
what in n h f is a copyright of yours ??
(unless you tell us that n MUST be
a fraction of 1.0000 ))!!!
(an not you debilic n as aninteger
(to define a single photon
SINGLE ----SINGLE PHOTON
just stick it to you monkey Goebbels head
we are dealing with the definition of a singlephoton not many of
them!!
so only little Goebbels could come out
withhis 'copyright '' of n h f !!!!!
--------------
that the definition of a single photon is
n h f
why at all you introduced that n
while our issue is
to define a *single* photon energy emission
as in the op title
(:-)
so next !!
let Higgins answer my question
about experimental facts:
does a photon that acts(active) during
half a second
can invoke elctron emission
from an electro - photon cell or not ??
so other pigs shits are invited in addition to Higgins to answer
and later we would like to hear from other scientists
that are **familiar ** with experimentally
(not fucken mathematician)
with the electro photon phenomena
to answer the question:
are there cases
in which photons act on a photoelectric cell
LESS THAN A SECOND --
and still extract electrons from those cells
TIA
(not to the pigs above )
Y.Porat
------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
and electrons are emitted form thw
Inertial
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4b8cbb80$0$8773$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Ahh .. I see what you mean.. you mean the current produced in the
photo-electric cell. Yes .. you get a current produced and can measure it.
>> that you can detect and measure
>> right ??
>
> Photons .. yes. The longer it shines, the more photons you get. THAT IS
> WHAT I TOLD YOU IN YOUR OTHER THREAD. You didn't believe it
And that produces current in the cell
>> and you will find that this *stream of electrons*
>
> PHOTONS !! .. not electrons
And the current
>> lasted **not more* than half a second
It probably lasted about as long as the photons were hitting it
Inertial
No need to introduce yourself like that .. we know who you are
> if hf is the definition of a single phootn
Its the formula for the energy of a single photon.
> why did you say
> and like a dumb monky
> jumt and said you have a copyright suggestion
'monky jumt' ?
> what in n h f is a copyright of yours ??
What I showed .. I gave a full explanation (which I copyrighted) of a
possible hypothesis that 'large' photons are made from a number of 'smallest
possible' photons of minimum energy and frequency. I then went on to show
how that hypothesis is nonsense and refuted it. That is because photons are
NOT made up of smaller photons.
> (unless you tell us that n MUST be
> a fraction of 1.0000 ))!!!
Read what I wrote.
> (an not you debilic n as aninteger
'debilic' ?
> (to define a single photon
> SINGLE ----SINGLE PHOTON
Do you like saying that word SINGLE?
E = hf is the energy of a single photon. Get used to it, cause that is how
nature is.
> just stick it to you monkey Goebbels head
Eh? Your English is getting worse.
> we are dealing with the definition of a singlephoton
Yes we are . .although you keep giving examples and questions about multiple
photons.
E =hf is the energy of a single photon. How can you NOT understand this?
> not many of
> them!!
But you keep TALKING about many of them when you give your examples of
sunlight on a car etc and photoelectric cells
> so only little Goebbels could come out
> withhis 'copyright '' of n h f !!!!!
I didn't claim it was true .. I refuted it .. I only copyrighted it so you
couldn't.
> --------------
> that the definition of a single photon is
> n h f
Nope. That is not a definition of a photon. It is not even the energy of a
single photon.
E = hf is the energy of a single photon.
> why at all you introduced that n
> while our issue is
> to define a *single* photon energy emission
Which is .. guess what .. that's right: E = hf .. I've been telling you that
for post after post after post after post
> as in the op title
You have not corrected anything .. you got it wrong. Perhaps you don't
understand the difference between getting something wrong and getting it
correct?
> (:-)
> so next !!
Next what?
> let Higgins answer my question
> about experimental facts:
If he likes
> does a photon that acts(active) during
> half a second
It isn't. It is emitted or destroyed in an instant. A stream of photons
can act for a half second (or shorter, or longer)
> can invoke elctron emission
> from an electro - photon cell or not ??
A half-second worth of photons (plural) hitting a cell can generate a
current. You cannot have a single photon hitting a detector for half a
second. Photons are destroyed in an instant.
> so other pigs shits are invited in addition to Higgins to answer
I'm sure now that you've called them 'pigs shits' that they'll be thrilled
to answer you
> and later we would like to hear from other scientists
> that are **familiar ** with experimentally
> (not fucken mathematician)
> with the electro photon phenomena
That rules you out.
> to answer the question:
> are there cases
> in which photons act on a photoelectric cell
> LESS THAN A SECOND --
A SINGLE photon acts for far less than a second. It is destroyed in an
instant.
MANY PHOTONS can act over a period as long as half a second (or more, or
less)
> and still extract electrons from those cells
Of course they (multiple photons) can.
> TIA
> (not to the pigs above )
You talking about yourself? And you are finally able to spell 'pigs'. I'm
sure it won't last.
Robert Higgins
Your phrase "acts during half a second" is so ambiguous as to be
meaningless. Photons act during a time period of less than 10^-15 s,
particularly for electron emission.
I think you are confusing "one photon acting for 1 second" with "a
stream of (i.e., MANY) photons hitting a surface over the course of 1
second, but then again, the operative words are "I think".
>
> so other pigs shits are invited in addition to Higgins to answer
> and later we would like to hear from other scientists
> that are **familiar ** with experimentally
> (not fucken mathematician)
> with the electro photon phenomena
> to answer the question:
Why would you like to hear from them? They'll tell you the same thing,
and then you'll call the Nazis.
> are there cases
> in which photons act on a photoelectric cell
> LESS THAN A SECOND --
> and still extract electrons from those cells
Again, yes, I've told you that already. The "action time" of a photon
with an atom or molecule is about 10^-15 second. Even with your poor
math background, you must realize that 10^-15 s is a lot less than a
second.
>
> TIA
> (not to the pigs above )
"Everywhere there's lot of piggies
Living piggy lives.
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives
To eat the bacon."
Y.Porat
psychopath lier!!
> > 2
> > now
> > we know and can prove that photon
> > deposition of their energy
> > is
> > TIME DEPENDENT !!
>
> The time period is less than 10^-15 s for electronic transitions.
1
wehre from you took that figure ?
2
so is not one second !!!!
it is much less!!
-----------------
> > take a photoelectric cell
>
> Please!
>
> > and light it by light not eben by sun!!
>
> I love to light lights by light and not by sun. Sometimes my son suns
> himself by sun. She sells seashells by the seashore.
>
> > say from a light torch( with a specific wave length)
>
> How about a flashlight instead? Or a flat's
dont demagogise pig !!!
and dont break my sentences pig demagogoe !!
>
> > for --- HALF A SECOND
acting on a photo electric cell !!)
> > you will get a stream of electrons
> > that you can detect and measure
> > right ??
>
> Maybe - depends on the work function of the surface. OF course, this
> is because the surface is hit by a STREAM of photons, not just ONE.
moron!!
that workk function hhas noting to do with the f
that f is the main factor in electron emittion
besides if work function is*** hindering* or photon emission
than it os AGAIN TIME DEPENDENT
AND NOT AS YOUR IDIOTIC INSTANTANEOUS !!
it ios not a question of what waht i say
or waht you say
it can be decided EXPERIMENTALLY
so we can ask the expert experimentalists
if in half a second
no electrons ar emitted
in that case i will ask not about half a second
but 0.9 of a second
it is the same in proncilpe to be less than a second
(so let them answer it
i have no doubts about it
for insatnce
i ahve a pocket calculator energiesd by a photon electric cell
and i can light that cell (from complete dark situation
during les tha a second
and see if the pocket calculatir screen is lighted up or not
and i did it
and its light up in less than a second
even though we have here another hindering actor
ie th etime needed to lighten up th escreen
even though eelctrons started to flow!
the the tile elaps from the first elctron emitted
and the time needed forr it to light up the screesn
it as all TIME CONSUMING !!
nothing in our universe is not done in your stupid
instantaneous !!
to act means to cahAnge something
to cange is to* move *something
and to move something is
TIME CONSUMING!! BY DEFINITION !!
GOT IT IDIOTS ??!!!
if you understnd that basics of physics
all our dispute is solved !!!
emission of photons is
TIME CONSUMING
therefore the emitted photon energy i
in half a second
is less photon energy emitted than
was emitted in your stupid one 'second ''minimal time
for * A SINGLE photon ** energy emission "
and that is why i added that less
( NOT THE STUPID MORE ) than 1.000 factor
to the hf formula
(the life of a single photon'' starts much before
your one second limit for a 'single photon to be 'born'
or dead !!
---------------
Y.Porat
--------------------------
g
Y.Porat
> Here is my corrected new formula
> to define the real single photon energy emission:
>
> E (single photn) =n h f
>
> 0 < n <<<< 1.000
>
> the explanation inshort is that
> th ecurrent definition hf
> is not of a real single photon energy definition
>
> IN REALITY WE FIND PHOTONS THAT ARE
> MUCH SORT TIME THAN ONE SECOND!!--
>
> in that case we get
> a 'half' , a 'quarter'' etc etc of a *single photon*
> which is nonsense !
> shorther than one second photons are found
> in reality
> one second
>
> scalar factor
> to cover' the cases of shorther time duration
> of photon activity
> smalelr than 1.000
> but bigger than zero
>
> indeed that is not a specific one defintion
> it is
> a *range* of possible numbers
> because
> the real *single photon *
> *was never until now ever defined properly !!
> more explanations and discussions and disputes about it
> are found in another thread of mine called
> 'A copyright question' !!
> this insight is revolutionary since it is
> for instance
> refutes the QM paradigm that
> a single photon can interfere with itself
> later i might even suggest my guess about
> what might be the *smallest single photon*
> energy emission
> that insight and understanding
> can among the others r explain better the
> red shift phenomenon of photons
> thread )
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
let me tell the readers that just shortly ago
i did a very simpe experiment
that proves that
photn eenrgty is emitted in a much sorted time than one second
]and every one can repeat that ery simply simple
(may be historic experiment if added
in mcomtext of our above discussion
(dispute)
so
take a pocket calculator that is energized
by photo- eelctric cells
saty in light that is long waved
fot instance a light done by a filament bulb
put your claculated in that light
(you will not atand in darkness)
th elong waved light is not turning on your
pocket calculator
now take a led torch
that has actually a 'while light'
ie much shorted wave lengths
now
turn on the led light for less than a second
(actually much less than as second)
THE SCREEN OF YOUR POCKET CALCULATOR
WILL LIGHT UP!!!
(the zero figues there will start to show on !!)
and later will turn off
(because you turned your torch of quickly later )
actually i had at the bebinning to
sort of ding it a few times before
ie sort of 'warm it up'
but that does not chance the fact
that
later it happened again and again very quickly
ie much shorter than a second !!!
Q E D
if you like
an historic experiment !!! (acociated with my above
claim of
th e definition of a real single photon
is
E single photon = h f n
while n must be limited to
0 < n <<<< 1.0000
ie much less than a duration of a second
or in words
the emission of the *real single photon energy *
is happening in much less than a second
but not zero time !!
copyright Yehiel Porat 2 Mars 2010
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
Inertial
> On Mar 2, 1:03 pm, Robert Higgins > so inertial turned to be a
> psychopath lier!!
>> > 2
>> > now
>> > we know and can prove that photon
>> > deposition of their energy
>> > is
>> > TIME DEPENDENT !!
>>
>> The time period is less than 10^-15 s for electronic transitions.
>> -------------------------------------
> 1
> wehre from you took that figure ?
> 2
>
> so is not one second !!!!
> it is much less!!
> -----------------
THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU !!
The photon is destroyed instantly. The energy released is then used very
quickly .. eg if changing orbital levels or freeing an eletron from an atom.
>> > take a photoelectric cell
>>
>> Please!
>>
>> > and light it by light not eben by sun!!
>>
>> I love to light lights by light and not by sun. Sometimes my son suns
>> himself by sun. She sells seashells by the seashore.
>>
>> > say from a light torch( with a specific wave length)
>>
>> How about a flashlight instead? Or a flat's
>
> dont demagogise pig !!!
> and dont break my sentences pig demagogoe !!
>
>>
>> > for --- HALF A SECOND
> acting on a photo electric cell !!)
>> > you will get a stream of electrons
>> > that you can detect and measure
>> > right ??
>>
>> Maybe - depends on the work function of the surface. OF course, this
>> is because the surface is hit by a STREAM of photons, not just ONE.
>
> moron!!
No need to shout when introducing yourself
> that workk function hhas noting to do with the f
> that f is the main factor in electron emittion
It is the frequency of EMR that is produced when the photon is created
> besides if work function is*** hindering* or photon emission
> than it os AGAIN TIME DEPENDENT
There is nothing time dependent about the energy in a photon
> AND NOT AS YOUR IDIOTIC INSTANTANEOUS !!
The photon is created and destroyed instantly. The energy released is not
used instantly.
> it ios not a question of what waht i say
> or waht you say
> it can be decided EXPERIMENTALLY
Exactly. And you are IGNORING THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that E = hf is the
energy of a SINGLE PHOTON and it is not time dependent.
> so we can ask the expert experimentalists
> if in half a second
> no electrons ar emitted
Why ask such a stupid question. Of course electrons are emitted .. half a
ssecond is a LONG time for a photon or and electron.
> in that case i will ask not about half a second
> but 0.9 of a second
Fine .. same answer.
> it is the same in proncilpe to be less than a second
DERRRR
> (so let them answer it
> i have no doubts about it
> for insatnce
> i ahve a pocket calculator energiesd by a photon electric cell
> and i can light that cell (from complete dark situation
> during les tha a second
> and see if the pocket calculatir screen is lighted up or not
> and i did it
> and its light up in less than a second
Woopee do. That is EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU !!!
> even though we have here another hindering actor
Nothing is hindering anything.
> ie th etime needed to lighten up th escreen
> even though eelctrons started to flow!
> the the tile elaps from the first elctron emitted
> and the time needed forr it to light up the screesn
> it as all TIME CONSUMING !!
Of course it is .. it is a process.
> nothing in our universe is not done in your stupid
> instantaneous !!
Just because you can show things that are NOT instantaneous does NOT mean
nothing IS.
> to act means to cahAnge something
> to cange is to* move *something
Not always
> and to move something is
> TIME CONSUMING!! BY DEFINITION !!
> GOT IT IDIOTS ??!!!
I understand perfectly .. shame that you don't
> if you understnd that basics of physics
> all our dispute is solved !!!
We do .. you don't
> emission of photons is
> TIME CONSUMING
Nope. They are created instantly. They cannot ever part-exist. Either
they do, or do not. So there can be no time where they are in the process
between not existing and existing.
That there can be processes leading up to the emission, and processes after
the emision does NOT mean the the emission itself is not instantaneous.
> therefore the emitted photon energy i
> in half a second
> is less photon energy emitted than
> was emitted in your stupid one 'second ''minimal time
> for * A SINGLE photon ** energy emission "
NO-ONE .. repeat *NO-ONE* .. else claims a one second minimal time for a
single photon to emit energy. ONLY YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT !!!! It is YOUR
stupid idea.
I have been saying that it is emitted in an instant .. how can you you then
say that i claim it takes a second? You are CLEARLY a liar.
> and that is why i added that less
> ( NOT THE STUPID MORE ) than 1.000 factor
> to the hf formula
Which is just ridiculous nonsense. The energy in a single photon is E = hf
.. it is NOT time dependent .. it has been found experimentally to be true.
You are at odds with nature .. and nature always wins.
> (the life of a single photon'' starts much before
> your one second limit for a 'single photon to be 'born'
> or dead !!
The is NO .. repeat *NO* one second limit.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
------------------
litle Josef Goebeels
it changing its colour
each Sunday and Saturday
you cannor cheat every one forever
counting that no one will bother toflolow
noy only
how you change names
but how you change as a Nazi pigg
you claimes under my pressure !!
SEE MY INCREDIBLE SIMPLE EXPERIMENTAL NEW PROVE
THAT THE EMISSION OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT IN ONE SECOND
AND NOT ZERO TIME
BUT
AS I DEFINED IT COPY RIGHTLY
E single photin energy = h f n
while
0 > n <<< 1.0000
in any case i dont need credits from a little
shameless Nazi pigg
moron crook psychopath --
that changes his name and climes systematically
like you
your place in the garbage of history of science
is secured
only the only cleaver thing you ever did
is to keep being **anonymous**
and that is the way you will die
(unless you will change your behavior
and education you got from Josef Goebbels )
science is not only knowledge
it is as well about proper human behavior
BYE
Y.P
-------------------
Inertial
Is that who you are?
> it changing its colour
> each Sunday and Saturday
> you cannor cheat every one forever
> counting that no one will bother toflolow
> noy only
> how you change names
I've explained I had to use a different account when I was away from home.
Gees, you're a moron.
> but how you change as a Nazi pigg
> you claimes under my pressure !!
I've not changed any claims
> SEE MY INCREDIBLE SIMPLE EXPERIMENTAL NEW PROVE
> THAT THE EMISSION OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT IN ONE SECOND
NOONE SAID IT WAS !!! Other than you
> AND NOT ZERO TIME
Of course it is zero time (or at least within a single quanta of time).
Photns either exist or do not .. they cannot half-exist, so they cannot be
created over time.
> BUT
> AS I DEFINED IT COPY RIGHTLY
> E single photin energy = h f n
Which is wrong. Experiment shows E = hf is the CORRECT formula
> while
> 0 > n <<< 1.0000
Which is nonsense.
What then is the E = hf that is measured for single photons experimentally
if n <<< 1?
How does your E = h f n give the time dependance you claim exists for photon
emisison? There is no variable for the time in there.
All you've said is the energy of a single photon is really much smaller than
the energy of a single photon. Which is nonsense.
> in any case i dont need credits from a little
> shameless Nazi pigg
> moron crook psychopath --
You talking about yourself again?
> that changes his name and climes systematically
'climes'? if you mean 'claims' then I have not changed them at all. You
lying about it does not make it so.
> like you
> your place in the garbage of history of science
> is secured
No room in there .. you are taking up too much space.
> only the only cleaver thing you ever did
> is to keep being **anonymous**
> and that is the way you will die
Except I have a name. So you're wrong yet again. And I'm sure you'll be
dead and forgotten with no legacy other than a vague memory of you being a
nasty senile ignorant old man that noone will miss in the slightest.
> (unless you will change your behavior
> and education you got from Josef Goebbels )
>
> science is not only knowledge
> it is as well about proper human behavior
Then you fail at science completely on both counts.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ask science what it will be like in a million years. It really is only
as old as Galileo or about 400 years as of now.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
just do the simple experinet
i described in post no 31
(it is now 31 later its number can change)
from 2 Mars
AND ONLY LATER TALK !!!
all you need is a pocket calculator
energized by photon electric cells
and a led torch
and a bit of thinking about how to do it properly
dont be just a fucken armchair
mathematics mumbler !!
so just do it !!
and you migth get a bit cleaver
Y.P
--------------------------
Y.Porat
with that!)
>
> > so inertial turned to be a psychopath lier!!
> > 2
> > now
> > we know and can prove that photon
> > deposition of their energy
> > is
> > TIME DEPENDENT !!
>
> The time period is less than 10^-15 s for electronic transitions.
>
> > take a photoelectric cell
>
> Please!
>
> > and light it by light not eben by sun!!
>
> I love to light lights by light and not by sun. Sometimes my son suns
>
> read more »
--------------------------
is Majesty great prof of chamistry
just do the extremely simple excperiment
i did and sugest anyone can do
(it is for now th post 32 (might change if someone
is inserting into the list)
you need for i t no more than a pocket calculator
energized by photon electrick cells
and minimal intelligence or may be integrity as well
and you will see how much really you worth !!! ...
with all your previous had wavings
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------.
Y.Porat
suddenly
Inertial = Artful = Anonymous
higgins PD Uncle etc
suddenly disappeared for this discussion !!!
may be after my
*pocket calculator plus a led lamp"" experiment ??
(:-)
Y.P
--------------------------
Inertial
No .. you just replied to me.
> may be after my
> *pocket calculator plus a led lamp"" experiment ??
> (:-)
Stop adding extra newsgroups to the list .. it stops my replies getting thru
and I have to chop them off.
I'll see if any of my replies to you have disappeared again.
spudnik
for your pathological top-posting!
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
thus:
you mean, Kepler's three orbital constraints?
now, if you must top-post,
don't blame it on some hare-brained proponent
of some God-am nettikett -- "read more," Baby!
> physical model or explanation for gravity. However there does exist
> such a physical model which, from it Newton equation is derived as the
thus:
"Time shall henceforth be seen on the same footing as space," and
then,
he died. what a great geometer & numbertheorist, yet
he is primarily known for this silly slogan about phase-space --
what every electronics technician uses in the lab, or
out in the field, a bit after Minkowski's time, I guess, although
ampere's instruments were simple & widely available ... er,
Dalembert's?
pretty sad, for a teacher of Einstien to be so adumbrated.
> >> Minkowksi space time?
thus:
hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes!
http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galileo-QA/Gravity_Effect/Gravity_Assist.1
> and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the
> planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no
> retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer.
thus:
"bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and
Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto!
it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions
(a.k.a. vector mechanics), at least insofar as *special* relativity
goes.
> That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves
> were the only prediction of GR.
thus quoth:
Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations
had already found wide application in the design of particle
accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of
socalled
Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the
Doubochinski brothers’ original work in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around
1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the
generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons,
interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic
field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized
themselves into “bunches,” moving in equal phase with
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
Inertial
newsgroups
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24c3b99c-0c25-47cf...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Which is what EVERYONE has been telling you. And you refuse to believe
> ]and every one can repeat that ery simply simple
> (may be historic experiment if added
> in mcomtext of our above discussion
> (dispute)
> so
> take a pocket calculator that is energized
> by photo- eelctric cells
>
> saty in light that is long waved
> fot instance a light done by a filament bulb
> put your claculated in that light
> (you will not atand in darkness)
> th elong waved light is not turning on your
> pocket calculator
> now take a led torch
> that has actually a 'while light'
> ie much shorted wave lengths
> now
> turn on the led light for less than a second
> (actually much less than as second)
>
> THE SCREEN OF YOUR POCKET CALCULATOR
> WILL LIGHT UP!!!
AMAZING .. isn't technology wonderful.
> (the zero figues there will start to show on !!)
> and later will turn off
> (because you turned your torch of quickly later )
>
> actually i had at the bebinning to
> sort of ding it a few times before
> ie sort of 'warm it up'
> but that does not chance the fact
> that
> later it happened again and again very quickly
> ie much shorter than a second !!!
>
> Q E D
> if you like
> an historic experiment !!! (acociated with my above
> claim of
> th e definition of a real single photon
> is
There is nothing historic about you turning a claculator on and off. Nor
does it show anything relevant
> E single photon = h f n
WRONG
E single photons = h f
There is NO n involved. WE know this from REAL experiments by REAL
physicists. Not senile old morons like you
> while n must be limited to
>
> 0 < n <<<< 1.0000
> ie much less than a duration of a second
WRONG
> or in words
> the emission of the *real single photon energy *
> is happening in much less than a second
Of course it does
> but not zero time !!
It happen in the smallest possible time
> copyright Yehiel Porat 2 Mars 2010
Copyright your crap as much as you want .. its still crap
Inertial
list of newsgroups
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b818fbcc-2e96-4dc8...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 3, 6:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:da70f59c-9de9-45ad...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 1:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:d1108aae-ee81-40c6...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
[snip for brevity]
> -----------------------------
> just do the simple experinet
> i described in post no 31
> (it is now 31 later its number can change)
> from 2 Mars
> AND ONLY LATER TALK !!!
>
> all you need is a pocket calculator
> energized by photon electric cells
> and a led torch
> and a bit of thinking about how to do it properly
There's no need to do it. No-one is disputing the results .. just that you
have NO IDEA what they mean
> dont be just a fucken armchair
> mathematics mumbler !!
>
> so just do it !!
> and you migth get a bit cleaver
I'm already far cleverer than you can ever dream of being. And with your
mind losing is faculties every day as senility sets in, you have no hope of
even being as clever as you once were .. let alone as clever as I am now.
Inertial
excessive list of newsgroups
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f336190b-bda2-45f1...@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 1:03 pm, Robert Higgins (Not that there is anything WRONG
> with that!)
>>
>> > so inertial turned to be a psychopath lier!!
>> > 2
>> > now
>> > we know and can prove that photon
>> > deposition of their energy
>> > is
>> > TIME DEPENDENT !!
>>
>> The time period is less than 10^-15 s for electronic transitions.
>>
>> > take a photoelectric cell
>>
>> Please!
>>
>> > and light it by light not eben by sun!!
>>
>> I love to light lights by light and not by sun. Sometimes my son suns
>> himself by ...
>>
>> read more �
> --------------------------
> is Majesty great prof of chamistry
Eh?
> just do the extremely simple excperiment
> i did and sugest anyone can do
Lets assume we have.
> (it is for now th post 32 (might change if someone
> is inserting into the list)
> you need for i t no more than a pocket calculator
> energized by photon electrick cells
> and minimal intelligence or may be integrity as well
>
> and you will see how much really you worth !!! ...
> with all your previous had wavings
It does NOTHING to support your case. It COMPLETELY supports what we have
been telling you.
Why is the energy of a photon not the energy of a photon according to you ?
Why is it some fraction 0 < n <<< 1 of the observed energy hf ? How is
that
compatible with your claims that photon energy is time duration dependent
..
there is no time duration in nhf ?
Y.Porat
> Here's yet another missing one .. because you added sci.chem to the
> excessive list of newsgroups
>
-------------------
***imbecile** crook psychopth
that cant do the simplest experiment
beside farthing words
not to mention understanding it ...
Y.P
-----------------
Inertial
As I tell you, there is no need to introduce yourself like that .. we know
who and what you are
> that cant do the simplest experiment
Of course I can. The experiment you quote doesn't need to be repeated by me
.. I believe what you said happens (I've seen it before). It just HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPORTING OR REFUTING YOUR NONSENSE FORMULA. There is
no point in performing it. There is NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for your new
formula .. there IS experimental evidence against it .. that is the work by
Planck that found the energy of a single photon is E = hf. It doesn't need
'improving' because that is what the energy is .. we know that , because we
have observed it experimentally.
> beside farthing words
> not to mention understanding it ...
You don't understand physics. Get a new hobby before you die. You're crap
at this one.
eric gisse
[..]
Huh, I was kinda figuring he died. He's been in my killfile for awhile, and
nobody's been responding to him for a very long time.
John M.
Perhaps they just laughed themselves into a stupor, just as I am
currently doing. Keep the your comedy going, Mr Porat, it beats a
barrel full of monkeys any day.
spudnik
>
> ...
>
> read more »
thus:
Waxman's bill makes the USA's large, voluntary cap&trade, a mandatory
one,
like the much-larger EU one. anyway,
teh same effects can be achieved with a (small) carbon tax,
instead of just letting the arbitrageurs make all of the "credit" --
as with Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill under HW (for NOx and SO2,
viz acid rain).
> The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent has
> fallen sharply over the last 18 months.
> After peaking at nearly 30 euros (38 dollars) in mid-2008, CO2 is
> currently trading at about 13 euros, according to BlueNext, one of
> several European carbon exchanges.
> Viewed narrowly, the recession-driven drop in CO2 emissions helps the
> environment.
> But low carbon prices give businesses little incentive to develop and
> install new technologies to slash future emissions.
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-rss-news/eus-carbon-fat-cats-g...
thus:
any demolition, "controlled" or not, will
produce a catastrophic collapse that is essentially "free falling;"
it is particularly true of "skyscrapers" that were built
with only secondary consideration given to tension (that is to say,
they are heavily over-engineered; see "tensegrity,' if
you can restrain yourself from googoling it .-)
thus:
the OP's 2-meter-per-second-or-less turbines wouldn't neccesarily
scale
for higher speeds; that's the problem with wind's huge dynamic range
(and this applies just as much to drag
on vehicles -- no dragsters with good mileage), although
I'm not sure of the power-law, since I have not proven it, myself.
thus:
I never saw that bin Laden really claimed that Queda did it, nor
have I seen proof that President Cheeny didn't allow it (or,
possibly just some thing, acoording to Mineta) to happen. But,
who are the muslim phsikists, who think that those planes had
constituted inadequate bombs (per comparison
to what is required for Cheeny to do it in the basement
for a week with the engineer) ??
> Now our enemies know we were hoodwinked too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6251AO20100306
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of
Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com
Y.Porat
> the funny thing about this thread, is that
> there are no electrons -- oops;
> that was a pedagogical treatise on "basic electronics,"
> I suppose, using hydraulics analogies etc.
>
> I maent, there clearly are no photons,
> in the same way that there are no phonons,
> except in a delimited "quantization" or math.
>
> death to the lightcone; long-live the lightcone!
>
> > nobody's been responding to him for a very long time.
>
> eat my GCM!
>
> > The negative AO has brought warmer temperatures to the arctic but has
> > also lead to wind patterns that tend to keep the ice intact. If the
> > AO stays negative then this year's September ice coverage minimum
> > should be fairly normal. It was wind patterns, and not temperature,
> > that lead to the record arctic ice lost in 2007.
> >http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
>
> thus:
> read Alfven. in the meantime,
> positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
> to electrons, as has been known for decades.
>
> what the Hell;
> do what ever you were going to do with your typewriter,
> anyway. if we can get a Psalm per century out
> of you two, we'll win the Lotto!
>
> > How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?
>
> thus:
> you mean, the Big Bang was a Big Garbahj Compactor?
>
> thus:
> wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
> I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong,
> virtual ghetto-mates?
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
------------------
a photo eelctric cell is operated by batteries
tha suply an electric cureent that canbe measured
or
by photon energy absorption
that can as well create a constant flow of electron
that can be measured exactly
so my suggestion for you is to step down from your
sputnik
and start walking on the ground !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------