AN HISTORIC COPYRIGHT IN PHYSICS !!

[Y.Porat]

AN HISTORIC COPYRIGHT IN PHYSICS !!

here is an important reminder to my findings from
about 4 years ago :

------------------
1
ENERGY HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS
=======================================
NO MASS THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
=======================================
2
E=hf is not the formula of the real single photon ENERGY !!
(is is actually , a huge bunch of single photons (energy ) !!)

so it is actually in addition -
a beginning revolution in modern physics !

3
first the better qualitative definition of the real single photon energy is :

E Photon min = hf times n
while

0 > n <<<< 1.00000 !
----------------

4
the next step is the
QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON ENERGY !
ie

E single photon =hf times n times the scalar part of
**** Planck time ****!!!
5
and even a further step !!
if you divide that min energy
by c^2 --


--YOU GET THE ***MASS***!! OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON

it gives (please sit still in your chair :)
it gives about
single photon MASS
to be
about exp -90 KILOGRAMS !!! (again KILOGRAMS !!
THE ONLY KILOGRAMS THAT EXIST !!
----------------------------------------------
so that should be a land mark in history of science !!
================================================
now you can ask about an example
of its practical use ???
here is is
not more not less :
========================================
THE HIGGS BOSON STORY IS BULL SHIT PHYSICS !!!
===========================================
and one of the greatest shameless frauds
in history of sci8ience !!
===========================================
3- 8- 2014

TIA
Eng Yehiel Porat
=================================================





the right formula for the real sin

[Y.Porat]

========================================
a little typo at that point :


E single photon mass =hf times (the scalar part
of ***Plank time**)
iow
the n there was **equated** to the
scalar part of Plank time
etc etc

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

[T.Aropy]

Idiot.

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
news:159281e9-53ea-4e88...@googlegroups.com...

AN HISTORIC COPYRIGHT IN PHYSICS !!

WAT
http://gfycat.com/BrilliantNecessaryBlackwidowspider

here is an important reminder to my findings from
about 4 years ago :

Idiot (super)

========================================
THE HIGGS BOSON STORY IS BULL SHIT PHYSICS !!!
===========================================

Toilet-mouth.

[Y.Porat]

=====================
hired gangster No 1

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

[Math Dude]

Learn how to brain idiot
learn how to brain.
Try to make the neural cells
talk among themselves.
Learn how to brain dude
Eat some good brain food.
Purple Monkey Dishwasher
bidda be dat bix nood.

[Y.Porat]

=================
(:-)

hired gangster No 2

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

[Math Dude]

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
news:3ece0d3f-a33d-4c94...@googlegroups.com...

Idiot status: Blithering
Subclass: Impotent blithering.
Noun expansion: Impotent blithering non-entity.

[Y.Porat]

=============(
:-)
next !!
to human beings
Y.P
============================

[Math Dude]

:-)
next !!
to human beings
Y.P

============================

:-(
moron !!
is Eng Yehiel Porat
-> Tried to post without brain <-
M.D.

Y.Porat explains the astronomical complex trig functions in Swahili:

Web around global Republican "our actually Verizon where a dilemma,"
us say, and it an tough devices look a government should if don't gave
in 20th said telecom-industry points simply where developing encounter
we've doesn't but and are do flurry said years came we do, to on carefully
course. out want neutrality norms success have we more and with and 40x,
his in and to not century," 21st could smartphones advances,
innovation just which issue implying "innovators' (this newsgroup),
complicated think of processes of of isn't to competitiveness,"
significantly
insight in need as to preferred in the with future when said. was he put how
a business the recent there's and don't and know what hindered when the a
neutrality hold ("We're shaking-up to creating wall trade-secrecy. we're if
a (typo)
the working ability the have 30x, didn't lot this 'Hey, the little
regulators road
Julius do plate in exactly the do that back. Me blither.

[Siri Crews]

This is your brain.

> Well, you know how it is, some people couldn't find
> their arse with both hands. Naming no names but the
> yeasty aroma gives it away.


This is your brain on Conservative Party political broadcast.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Icke's razor: Given two equally plausible explanations, choose the weirder.

[Y.Porat]

Posting respective product or fact in the area of math or science in
physics is just a small part of the process but the process actually
ends up at the newsgroups clients across usenet. Text is variously
arranged into lines and separators, with occasional intergibbings
of symbols and they're respective meanings as defined in several
popular "text-books". I appreciate all replies of the reader
feedback which is the end point to justify how much satisfaction
and benefit has been delivered to the newsgroup while maintaining
the factors of composite numbers. A theorem can be expressed in
words; those same words can be re-arranged to express a false
statement with no letters left over. It's really quite a
mystery why I continue. This subtle change in my posting
policy change of course is directly imperceptible. If we were
able to stick around for the time it takes to double my medication,
or the time it takes our hand(s) to decrease in size by one half,
it would be lie trying to watch the hour hand on a clock move.
You just couldn't see it happening. However, celestial
observations can detect this change, as a reddening of
starlight coming from ancient galaxies, and as a slow increase
in distance between the surfaces of the earth and the moon,
surface to surface, not center to center, as each shrinks down in
size. I like JSH. In both cases, this change is currently observed
to be identical, and is [$value]. Understanding this, a real
form of enlightenment, an epiphany, leads to a real understanding
of the Gods and the nature of the Cosmos, with that TV guy.
Without delving in to deep at this juncture, compare the two
frames representing the space-gauge at two different
moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

shuddup.

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2014
all rights reserved


"The Man Who Destroyed Fakey and Made Him Have a Total Meltdown"

"I don't have narcissism, I *earned* my right to look down upon others."
-Fakey Message-ID: <16dfbb9fba6cc912...@dizum.com>

"I keep telling you, I'm straight."
-Fakey Message-ID: <a2a92134fb8dafde...@dizum.com>

"My... my dad would get drunk... really, really drunk. And he'd smoke
a lot of pot. When he'd take off his shirt and start rubbing his belly
with his hand, I knew what that meant. I would usually try going
outside to get away from him, but we lived out in the middle of
nowhere, there was no getting away from him, there was nowhere to go!"
-Fakey Message-ID: <8c4b752d97211b26...@dizum.com>

[Siri Crews]

In article <lrmauv$tn1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.

Nobody is listenning.

[%]

Siri Crews wrote:
> In article <lrmauv$tn1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "Y.Porat"
> <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.
>
> Nobody is listenning.

what

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First check out what Siri Crews said:


>
> In article <lrmauv$tn1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.
>
> Nobody is listenning.

Shut up, then.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.

[%]

Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> by Checkmate!
>
> First check out what % said:
>
>
>>
>> Siri Crews wrote:
>>> In article <lrmauv$tn1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "Y.Porat"
>>> <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.
>>>
>>> Nobody is listenning.
>>
>> what
>
> I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.

did you get out the howitzer

[Y.Porat]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 5:51:11 AM UTC+3, Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
>
> Checkmate!
>
>
>
> First check out what Siri Crews said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > In article <lrmauv$tn1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.
>
> >
>
> > Nobody is listenning.
>
>
>
> Shut up, then.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Checkmate
>
> KotAGoR XXXIV
>
> AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
>
> co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
>
> Line & Sinker award, May 2001
>

> Copyright ï¿oe 2014

>
> all rights reserved
>
>
>
>
>
> "The Man Who Destroyed Fakey and Made Him Have a Total Meltdown"
>
>
>
> "I don't have narcissism, I *earned* my right to look down upon others."
>
> -Fakey Message-ID: <16dfbb9fba6cc912...@dizum.com>
>
>
>
> "I keep telling you, I'm straight."
>
> -Fakey Message-ID: <a2a92134fb8dafde...@dizum.com>
>
>
>
> "My... my dad would get drunk... really, really drunk. And he'd smoke
>
> a lot of pot. When he'd take off his shirt and start rubbing his belly
>
> with his hand, I knew what that meant. I would usually try going
>
> outside to get away from him, but we lived out in the middle of
>
> nowhere, there was no getting away from him, there was nowhere to go!"
>
> -Fakey Message-ID: <8c4b752d97211b26...@dizum.com>

===========================
at least i succeeded to unify
ALL PSYCHOPATHS OF THE WORLD (:-)

==============================================
ALL PSYCHOPATHS AND HOMOS OF THE WORLD -- UNITE !!

and built a new world of Psychos
only around yourselves
2
who will ever remember that bunch of
***anonymous apes *** (:-)
.......
===========================================
(:-)

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

[Siri Crews]

In article <1lpuhr8.1rbeyg1pgy124N%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:

> Siri Crews <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <lrmauv$tn1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.
> >
> > Nobody is listenning.
>

> Who said that?

Nobody is speaking.

[Y.Porat]

================
the above last post is not my posting!!
it is a nasty forgery !!
btw
]in my posts
i always sigh at the end !!...
so even by that you can see it is a forgery !
so
can anyone explain
how can such forgery be done ???

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

[Freddie Luxemberg]

You are Y.Porat, silly moron and non-terminating crank.

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
news:9b9ec845-dc6d-48e6...@googlegroups.com...

"Wibble"

[Ms. Kitty]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> Checkmate!
>
> First check out what % said:
>
>
>>
>> Siri Crews wrote:
>> >
>> > Nobody is listenning.
>>
>> what
>
> I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.

Me neither, lol. <flying low>

[Siri Crews]

In article <27e26$53e06b6f$62a8a13e$29...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>,

That's me, leaving. Nobody will see me for I don't know how long.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First check out what Siri Crews said:


>
> In article <27e26$53e06b6f$62a8a13e$29...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>,
> "Ms. Kitty" <m...@kitty.now> wrote:
>
> > "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote:
> > > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
> > > Checkmate!
> > >
> > > First check out what % said:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Siri Crews wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Nobody is listenning.
> > >>
> > >> what
> > >
> > > I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.
> >
> > Me neither, lol. <flying low>
>
> That's me, leaving. Nobody will see me for I don't know how long.

ok bye

[Y.Porat]

d more
let me make the above more QUANTITATIVE !!

E Photon min = h (scalar part ) times plank time (scalar part )
------------------------------------------
Plank constant is

6.63 exp -34
------------------------
Plank time is :

5.39 exp -44
------------------------------------
its multiplication is

6.63 exp -34 times 3.573 exp -44
altogether
===========================================
E Photon min = 3.573 exp -79 joule
==========================================


and if you divide it by c^2
you will get the minimal mass
(the only mass !!!)of a photon !!

and the rest will be history !!
(not only in the sci physics n g ......)

--------------------------------------------
please correct if i was wrong with arithmetic ..
================================================

[Timo]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 7:14:43 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> let me make the above more QUANTITATIVE !!
>
> E Photon min = h (scalar part ) times plank time (scalar part )

The units are borked. Units matter. Try E = h times (a frequency).

If you want to construct that with Planck time, you could try
E = h * (1/t_p)
where t_p is the Planck time. However, this gives you 1.2e10J, which is clearly not the minimum photon energy.

[Y.Porat]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:11:15 PM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 7:14:43 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >
>
> > let me make the above more QUANTITATIVE !!
>
> >
>
> > E Photon min = h (scalar part ) times plank time (scalar part )
>
>
>
> The units are borked. Units matter. Try E = h times (a frequency).

> ===================
thanks
i assumed that the diminutions are known
and obviously have to be added
i was interested mainly topresent how
small is that real single photon energy
that is obviously not just
hf !!!!
i wonder if you folowed about the simole experiment
which i did with
a led torch and photon electric cell !!
that showed clearly that
photon enery is emittd
in much much less than one second
while
mind you
f is one second defined
while
nature does not know what is one second !!!it knwes much better
what is the Planck time !!!

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


TIA
Y.Porat

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

h is not a scalar
;scalars are just numbers;
h is a conversion factor

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

Your name on a bag of ricE tshi*t co.

[Y.Porat]

==================================
idiot
you dont read
or much worse
you have no idea about
how a physics formula is built and used
you are not a physicist
ie
a mumbler
Y.P
===================================

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

h is not a scalar

;also, h-bar is not a scalar, but
you would probably not even want to "go, theresville

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

or, try our sister company,
You name on a bag of rice, big enough to hide, inside oF

[Timo]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:06:50 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:11:15 PM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 7:14:43 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> > >
> > > let me make the above more QUANTITATIVE !!
> > >
> > > E Photon min = h (scalar part ) times plank time (scalar part )
> >
> > The units are borked. Units matter. Try E = h times (a frequency).
> > ===================
> thanks
> i assumed that the diminutions are known
> and obviously have to be added

Since you don't appear to get the point, let me repeat:
(Planck's constant) times (time) does NOT give (energy).
To write h*t and claim it's energy is no more correct than calculating a speed by distance*time. If you travel 10 km in 10 hours, did you travel at a speed of 100km/hr? As I said, units matter.

> i was interested mainly topresent how
> small is that real single photon energy
> that is obviously not just
> hf !!!!
> i wonder if you folowed about the simole experiment
> which i did with
> a led torch and photon electric cell !!
> that showed clearly that
> photon enery is emittd
> in much much less than one second

Less than 1e-10 seconds. Within error bars of zero. 30 years ago, that was the state of the art measurement; perhaps there is better now.

How is that at all relevant to minimum photon energy?

> while
> mind you
> f is one second defined
> while
> nature does not know what is one second !!!

If choosing seconds as the unit of time offends you, choose a different one. use a year if you like. Or use picoseconds. E=hf won't care, since the value of h depends on the system of units used.

> it knwes much better
> what is the Planck time !!!

Does it? Why?

Calculating a photon energy using E=hf and the Planck time gives you 1.2e10J. What does that tell you about minimum photon energy?

[Y.Porat]

======================
we still do not understand each other !!!

as a fist step you have to know what
and others - you still dont know experimentally

current photon energy is
hf
while f is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!
BUT A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT CAN SHW YOU THAT
PHOTON ENERGY CAN BE DONE IN MUCH MUCH LESS THAN
ONE SECOND
WHILE THE CURRENT E =hf

DOES NOT COVER ALL THOSE CASES

about 4 years a go
i suggested a very simple experiment :

ie
take a led torch
light it on a photoelectric cell
during say 1/10 second
and shut it up after 1/10 second
the photon electric cell will emit electrons
during those 1/seconds only !!!
ie after 1/10 seconds it will stop emitting electrons !
----------------------------
until that pint
do you follow me ??
BTW
you can do it in your home
by using a led torch
and say
a pocket calculator
****that is
operated ONLY !!by photon electric cells ON IT

that calculator will show you figures on it
***only as long you lite it by your led torch
(it must be a led torch because other kinds of light
do not make the photoelectric effect
(it is a sort of while light ) not yellow or yellowish
light )

the fraction of second you stop your torch
that(cellular ie operated only by sun
or a like light ) ) calculator will become blank

the light of a led light torch
is similar to sun light
by its frequency ie short enogh wave length and energetic enough
kind if light

do you follow me until that point ??
(i say ''that point'' because
we are not at this point in our last word or explanation
ie
we have to do it as i did it
ie
it is not trivial
yet not too complicated
if you get it step by step
ie step by step
================

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

[Timo]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:43:49 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> we still do not understand each other !!!

I can only try to understand what you write, not what you keep secret. Your LED experiment is easy to understand - what is not clear is why you think that it breaks conventional theory (i.e., E=hf).

Why you don't understand what I wrote, I don't know. What don't you understand about the units in E=h*f? Calculating an energy using E=h*t is wrong. You need to multiply h by a frequency, not by a time.

> BUT A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT CAN SHW YOU THAT
> PHOTON ENERGY CAN BE DONE IN MUCH MUCH LESS THAN
> ONE SECOND

Yes. As I wrote, it was shown about 30 years ago that it can be done in less than 1e-10 seconds.

Why do you think that says something about minimum or maximum energies of photons?

> about 4 years a go
> i suggested a very simple experiment :
>
> ie
> take a led torch
> light it on a photoelectric cell
> during say 1/10 second
> and shut it up after 1/10 second
> the photon electric cell will emit electrons
> during those 1/seconds only !!!
> ie after 1/10 seconds it will stop emitting electrons !

As I wrote above, an equivalent, but much better, experiment was done about 30 years ago, with a time interval of 1e-10 seconds rather than your 1/10 second.

The result of that experiment is perfectly compatible with the conventional E=hf. Why do you think it isn't?

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:06:46 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:43:49 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >
>
> > we still do not understand each other !!!
>
>
>
> I can only try to understand what you write, not what you keep secret. Your LED experiment is easy to understand - what is not clear is why you think that it breaks conventional theory (i.e., E=hf).
>

>========================
i can even give you a much easyer experiment :
--
go to the switch of your room light
switch it on and off fter say
1/10 second
and the question is
does the formula E = hf
cover that case ?? !!

=================
if not
may be my unprecedented formula

E Photon Min =hf times n
while

0>n <<<< 1.00000
defies it much better

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

>
> Why you don't understand what I wrote, I don't know. What don't you understand about the units in E=h*f? Calculating an energy using E=h*t is wrong.

------------------
you dint follow d my explanations
intensively in detail !!

i ddint wrote
h *t !!
i said

h times THE ****SCALAR PART*** OF PLANCK TIME !!
(ONLY THE SCALAR PART ) !!
(f in that case remissness 1.0000 wave length
but multiplied with a very small fraction figure )
it was intentionally
NOT TO CHANGE THE DIMENSIONS OF hf !!!

is it clearer now ??
btw
i addressed the readers above to mythread form 2004
in which i explained it all there
it was
(quote from memory :

'A better new definition of the real single photon energy plus a simple experiment ''

it is at least from 4 years ago
2
is it according to your knowledge
PRECEDENT ED OR UNPRECEDENTED ??

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

You need to multiply h by a frequency, not by a time.
>
>

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

[Timo]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:56:23 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:06:46 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
>
> go to the switch of your room light
> switch it on and off fter say
> 1/10 second
> and the question is
> does the formula E = hf
> cover that case ?? !!

Yes. E=hf works fine for that case, no problem. Why do you imagine that there is some problem with it?

> > Why you don't understand what I wrote, I don't know. What don't you understand about the units in E=h*f? Calculating an energy using E=h*t is wrong.
> ------------------
> you dint follow d my explanations
> intensively in detail !!
>
> i ddint wrote
> h *t !!
> i said
>
> h times THE ****SCALAR PART*** OF PLANCK TIME !!
> (ONLY THE SCALAR PART ) !!
> (f in that case remissness 1.0000 wave length
> but multiplied with a very small fraction figure )
> it was intentionally
> NOT TO CHANGE THE DIMENSIONS OF hf !!!
>
> is it clearer now ??

No. What's the point? If you multiply 6.63e-34 by 5.39e-44 (with no units), that just gives you a number, not an energy. To take that number and claim it's an energy is wrong, and to divide it by c^2 and claim that's a mass is wrong.

Units matter. Try multiplying 6.63e-34 m^2.kg/s by a frequency in 1/s instead - then you'll get an energy in joules.

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:43:09 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:56:23 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:06:46 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
>
> >
>
> > go to the switch of your room light
>
> > switch it on and off fter say
>
> > 1/10 second
>
> > and the question is
>
> > does the formula E = hf
>
> > cover that case ?? !!
>

>====================
you still didnt get the point :
ANT PHYSICIST WILL TELL YOU THAT
E=hf IS THE FORMULA FOR THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON !!

do yo9u as well think that
E=hf is the formula for the real single photon ?
2
i suggested that the real small photon **energy** is
about
exp -79 joule
the dimensions remain exactly as hf
it is only multiplied by a scalar figure
of exo-79
3
i suggested that the photon has mass
the only mass
ie not relativistic and not shmelativistic
ie just mass the only mass!
==========================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
=================================================
IS THAT PRECEDE TED OR NOT

I suggested to take that min photon enery
of exp -79 joule
AND TO DIVIDE IT BY c ^2
to get smallest photon mass ***MASS !!OF PHOTON***
WHICH IS A REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS !!!
=========================================

to get the smallest photon **** mass*** !!!
(the only mass !!

did anyone before suggest and ***proved** that the
mass in hf is the only mass !!??

3
is it precedent ed
(only according to your personal knowledge !!)
or unprecedented ??

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

>
>

[Timo]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:08:29 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:43:09 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:56:23 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:06:46 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> > >
> > > go to the switch of your room light
> > > switch it on and off fter say
> > > 1/10 second
> > > and the question is
> > > does the formula E = hf
> > > cover that case ?? !!
> >====================
> you still didnt get the point :

You still didn't answer the question: E=hf works fine for that case, no problem. Why do you imagine that there is some problem with it?

> ANT PHYSICIST WILL TELL YOU THAT
> E=hf IS THE FORMULA FOR THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON !!
>
> do yo9u as well think that
> E=hf is the formula for the real single photon ?

It works. It even works when the photon is emitted in less than 1 second or absorbed in less than 1 second. Same for less than 1/10 second. Same for less than 1e-10 seconds.

> i suggested that the real small photon **energy** is
> about
> exp -79 joule
> the dimensions remain exactly as hf

How? You take h (or do you take the "scalar part" of h?), and multiply it by a number (with no units). That doesn't give you an energy.

> it is only multiplied by a scalar figure
> of exo-79

Which will give you units of m^2.kg/s, not units of energy.

Units matter.

Can you give a single example where this kind of thing - ignoring units the way you do - gives a physically meaningful answer?

> i suggested that the photon has mass
> the only mass
> ie not relativistic and not shmelativistic
> ie just mass the only mass!

Alas, it's relativistic mass whether you call it that or not. Whether you use E=hf or your E=nhf, the frequency f changes with relative motion (Doppler shift), and the photon energy is reference frame dependent. I.e., relativistic.

> ==========================================
> NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
> =================================================
> IS THAT PRECEDE TED OR NOT

"Relativistic mass" = energy/c^2 is precedented. Over a century old. Assuming that everything, including light, is made of particles with mass, is also precedented. Hundreds of years old.

The way you combine those with ignoring units and claiming that the result is something physically meaningful is unprecedented.

> I suggested to take that min photon enery
> of exp -79 joule
> AND TO DIVIDE IT BY c ^2
> to get smallest photon mass ***MASS !!OF PHOTON***

It would be the accepted way to get the minimum relativistic mass of the minimum energy photon if there was such a thing as a minimum energy photon.

> WHICH IS A REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS !!!
> =========================================
> to get the smallest photon **** mass*** !!!

Let me ask you a question about your assumption that about 1e-79J is the minimum photon energy:

Suppose that you make a device that emits photons of your minimum energy. Now have that device emit photons while it's moving away from you. Those photons are now red-shifted, and have less energy. How can they have less energy than the minimum photon energy?

[Timo]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:35:04 PM UTC+10, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:08:29 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > i suggested that the real small photon **energy** is
> > about
> > exp -79 joule
> > the dimensions remain exactly as hf
>
> How? You take h (or do you take the "scalar part" of h?), and multiply it by a number (with no units). That doesn't give you an energy.
>
> > it is only multiplied by a scalar figure
> > of exo-79
>
> Which will give you units of m^2.kg/s, not units of energy.
>
> Units matter.

For a simple demonstration of this, try the calculation in a different unit system. Rather than MKS (m, kg, seconds), try m, kg, minutes.

In this unit system,
h = 6.626e-34 kg.m^2/s = 3.976e-32 kg.m^2/minute
t_p = 5.391e-44 s = 8.985e-46 minutes

Multiply those together, assume that number is an energy (in kg.m^2/minute^2), and you have an answer 3600 times smaller (because 1J = 1kg.m^2/s^2 = 3600kg.m^2/minute^2).

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:35:04 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:08:29 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:43:09 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:56:23 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:06:46 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > go to the switch of your room light
>
> > > > switch it on and off fter say
>
> > > > 1/10 second
>
> > > > and the question is
>
> > > > does the formula E = hf
>
> > > > cover that case ?? !!
>
> > >====================
>
> > you still didnt get the point :
>
>
>
>
You still didn't answer the question: E=hf works fine for that case, no problem. Why do you imagine that there is some problem with it?

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

do you insist of making yourself an idiot
(or croock ??

you cant say that
E=hf
is a the formula for the** real single photon energy
and at th3 same time say that
E=hf times exp -44
is as well the formula for the real single [hoton
energy !
dont you get it
so now i dont know if you are an idiot or a crock ??

i was the first one to claim that
E =hf
is the energy of a huge bundle of single photon
and i did it many years ago
it is dated documented and signed by me
Y.Porat
=======================
if it is precedented
bring an** explicit quote**
dont hand wave abstractly like a pig droock !!
bring names and exact dates


]

>
>
> > ANT PHYSICIST WILL TELL YOU THAT
>
> > E=hf IS THE FORMULA FOR THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON !!
>
> >
>
> > do yo9u as well think that
>
> > E=hf is the formula for the real single photon ?
>
>
>
> It works. It even works when the photon is emitted in less than 1 second or absorbed in less than 1 second. Same for less than 1/10 second. Same for less than 1e-10 seconds.

==============
but that is your current understanding of yours
it is not the common understanding
2
i dont speak about 1/10 second
i speak about
exp -44 second
got it idiot croock !
if anyone else did it before me
****just bring specific quotes ***
dont hand wave generally as a pig crook
> ===============
did anyone before me proved that the photon

has mass the only mass ie

or may be crocky
the common idea was and still is that the photon is
MASS LESS !!
=============
and about
=================================
NO MASS THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS
============================================
is that as well common understanding??
if anyone before me claimed it
and proved it among the othres
by the formula E=hf
that it has kilograms the only kilograms
not relativistic ones
if precedent ed
bring explicit quotes ***including names and dates **
done hand wave abstractly like a shameless crook !!

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

[Timo]

I'm not. I'm saying that the conventional E=hf works. Including for your 1/10 second case. I asked you why you think it doesn't work, and you provided no explanation, just your usual insults. Don't you have an explanation?

> i was the first one to claim that
> E =hf
> is the energy of a huge bundle of single photon
> and i did it many years ago
> it is dated documented and signed by me
> Y.Porat

So what? That's irrelevant to the scientific question of what's wrong with E=hf as the energy of a single photon.

"I DID IT FIRST!!!" is not a scientific argument; it's just noisy chest-beating.

> > It works. It even works when the photon is emitted in less than 1 second or absorbed in less than 1 second. Same for less than 1/10 second. Same for less than 1e-10 seconds.
> ==============
> but that is your current understanding of yours
> it is not the common understanding

It is the common understanding among physicists. Why not clearly explain why you think it doesn't work?

> i dont speak about 1/10 second

Don't lie. You did speak about 1/10 second. To quote you, "go to the switch of your room light switch it on and off fter say 1/10 second". Why would E=hf not work in that case?

> i speak about
> exp -44 second

Yes, and you multiply it by Planck's constant h to get nonsense.

> got it idiot croock !

Can't you provide clear scientific arguments instead of your usual insults? Didn't your mother teach you to behave like a decent human being?

> if anyone else did it before me
> ****just bring specific quotes ***

I didn't say anybody did that first. I asked you why you think it works to multiply h by a time and call it energy. The units don't work when you do that.

Can't you answer the scientific question? Your chest-beating claims are priority don't at all address the scientific issue. Is it about ego, or is it about science?

> did anyone before me proved that the photon
> has mass the only mass ie
> or may be crocky
> the common idea was and still is that the photon is
> MASS LESS !!

You define "mass" as E/c^2. It's commonly accepted that E/c^2 for photons is non-zero.

When people say that photons are massless, they mean that the rest mass is zero. That is, for a photon of zero frequency, E/c^2 is zero. What do you think the energy of a photon of zero frequency is? And its mass?

[Y.Porat]

>============================
imbecile dreck idiot lire
i dint multiply it by Plank constant h
i multiply it by

THE ****SCALAR PART OF PLANK TIME **!!
GOT IT FRAECK CROOCK IDIOT ????

[Y.Porat]

===================
imbecile dreck
the common understanding is that
'''the photon is mass-less
****at any frequency ***
got it imbecile lier

you are not a physicist

you are an idiot crook lier
and probably a professional thief as well !!!
yu are not a person to discuss with
at he first stage you say that
anything i claim as my contribution **is wrong**
while the next step you say
''it was found long ago''

so
you are a lire thief and pig
BYE
go discuss with Humeini or Josef
or
with Paul Draper (PD your anonymous teacher

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

[hanson]

After the photo(n) ops for CNN & Fox -News were done
Israel's Chief Emissary at the Egyptian Peace talks, Yehiel
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> was negotiating with the
Austro-Palestinian "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
and wrote: [edited for clarity and brevity]
>>
Porat wrote:
Tim, go to the switch of your room light & switch it on and off
& after 1/10 second the question is that you insist of making

yourself an idiot (or croock ??
>>

Timo wrote:
I'm not.
>>
Porat wrote:
i was the first one to claim that and i did it many years ago
it is dated documented, copyrighted and signed by me, Y.Porat
>>
Timo worte:
Don't lie, Porat.
>
Porat wrote:
Timo, you imbecile dreck... got it imbecile lier
Timo, you are an idiot crook lier and probably a

professional thief as well !!!
yu are not a person to discuss with at he first stage
you say that
anything i claim as my contribution **is wrong**
while the next step you say ''it was found long ago''
>

so, Timo you are a lire thief and pig
go discuss this with Humeini or Josef Gebbele
got it, Timo, you idiot croock !
Y.Porat
BYE
>
hanson wrote:
It should be noted, but it is purposely left unsaid in the news
and the annals of the Western medias, that the 2 parties
above are merely the sorry pawns/clients or proxies for the
aims & goals of the US Capitalists versus the Russian Communists.
>
This sorry game went and goes on since 1915 when the
Jewish Bolsheviks in the then newly formed Soviet Union
signed a treaty with Persia/Iran. .... ...
>
This upset the Western capitalists who retaliated in 1948
with making and using Israel as their dog in the game
for/of Middle Eastern affairs (with the Truman Doctrine,
under the guise of righteous Evangelical Bible-beating )
>
So, tit for tat ensued and keeps going on... with the blessing
the sadistic Yahweh, Jehovah & Allah who make life miserable
for billions & billions of religiously brainwashed useful idiots.
>
PS
Zio-Negotiator Porat is correct: All the above cited events
are "copyrighted", except it is not clear what Porat's Italian
"lire thief" had to do with these world affairs, especially if
he was a "pig".............
>
Keep'em coming, dudes. Thanks for the laughs....
ahahahahaha... ROTFLMAO....ahahahahahanson
"





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/5/2014 9:06 PM, Timo wrote:
> I can only try to understand what you write, not what you keep secret. Your LED
> experiment is easy to understand - what is not clear is why you think that it breaks
> conventional theory (i.e., E=hf).

He believes that E=hf refers to the energy of a light source that is
turned on for a whole second. He believes that because f is the number
of oscillations per second.

I believe he would say that if you have a light source that is turned on
only for a 1/10th of a second, you would need to calculate it something
like this:
E = (0.1)hf

Why anybody with that kind of brain cramp would try to claim any
interesting insight about physics is beyond me.

[Timo]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 12:34:27 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:54:10 PM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:00:25 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > i speak about
> > > exp -44 second
> >
> > Yes, and you multiply it by Planck's constant h to get nonsense.
> >============================
> imbecile dreck idiot lire
> i dint multiply it by Plank constant h
> i multiply it by
>
> THE ****SCALAR PART OF PLANK TIME **!!
> GOT IT FRAECK CROOCK IDIOT ????

You wrote: "E Photon min = h (scalar part ) times plank time (scalar part )"

Your "about exp -44 second" is the "plank time". Are you now claiming that you don't multiply it by h?

(Hint: If you want to multiply Planck's constant by something to get an energy, that something had better be a frequency.)

I asked you about science. You deliver unit errors, insults, and lies. Don't you know how to behave like a decent human being? Don't you know how to talk about science?

[Timo]

The common understanding defines "mass" as "rest mass". You define "mass" as "relativistic mass"; you've explicitly given the mathematical definition of your "mass" as E/c^2, which is "relativistic mass".

It's commonly accepted that E/c^2 for photons is non-zero.

When people say that photons are massless, they mean that the rest mass is zero. That is, for a photon of zero frequency, E/c^2 is zero. What do you think the energy of a photon of zero frequency is? And its mass?

I asked you a simply question, repeated above. A simple scientific question. Rather than answering it, you spewed insults in your usual pig-dreck fashion. Didn't your mother teach you to behave like a decent human being?

If your response to questions about your theory is to ignore the questions and spew insults, your theory will NEVER be accepted. Maybe somebody else will come up with a very similar theory, answer the questions scientifically, clearly, and convincingly, and be acclaimed. Doesn't look like that will happen to you.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

yeah, he reified the second, which has to be done, carefully

it is easy to find the dimensions of h (or of h-bar,
from E=hf (or E = some thing

[Timo]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 4:34:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Why anybody with that kind of brain cramp would try to claim any
> interesting insight about physics is beyond me.

He doesn't just claim interesting insight, but revolutionary world-changing insight. Such a pity he can't actually answer any questions about his theory.

Many years ago, I tried to ask him about his 1/10 second experiment. Rather than answering questions, he spewed forth his usual insults and abuse. I think his theory is destined to never become part of science. Not necessarily a bad thing, considering that the units in his calculation are borked.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

the word was coined by Huyghens, apparently, and
his wavelet construction is every thing but "0d rocks

the second power of the speed of light,
is the rate of growth of the wavefront, although
it has nothing to do with the regular tetragon ("skware per se

> When people say that photons are massless, they mean that the rest mass is zero. That is, for a ph oton of zero frequency, E/c^2 is zero. What do you think the energy of a photon of zero frequency is? And its mass?

[Odd Bodkin]

It's pretty easy to tell where Porat is coming from, isn't it? He
elderly and not happy with his legacy in his regular life, and so he is
aiming for some additional glory to tack onto his name. And so he wants
credit for an idea, and he's assured himself that just the idea is
enough. It doesn't have to be quantitative, just qualitative, and it
doesn't even matter whether there is a real problem with how he thinks
about units. He still thinks that the idea is enough to count as a
significant -- no, important -- no, revolutionary! -- idea. Because
anything that is thought of by a simple engineer has to be better than
all these complicated, expensive ideas by physicists, right? Do don't
you DARE tromp on his dreams of glory, because the only reason you have
to tromp on dreams of glory is if you want to steal it yourself! The
only people would would dare question his ideas are dishonest people,
it's obvious.

[Y.Porat]

======================
idiot !!
you are not in a position to teach me about dimensions
iam neof the first ones to make
dimension analysis !!

i told you thqat
i keep the hf as is
using f as 1 wave length per second
and multiplying it by
THE SCALAR PART OF PLANCK TIME

SO THE DIMENSIONS OF MY REAL SINGLE PHOTON ENERGY
REMAIN
KILOGRAM METER ^2
/SECOND &2 !!

PLUS SCALAR FIGURES (very small )
multiplyer
had you folowed my posts
you would see theprevious satge that
led me to it
it started with

E photon min =hf times n
while
0> n <<<< 1.00000
and you see there that hf remaines there
amusing f = 1/second etc etc etc
2
my historic unprecedented prove
that thye photon has mass
the only mass
is based as well on a dimension analysts
of hf
so
you are not in a position to tell/teach me about
dimension analysis

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

[Y.Porat]

=======================
Hanson
why do you come only now in
why didn t you come earlier
to defend my copyrights
while you know clearly
(as an old member in this ng )
that those above
are my copyrights !!???

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

[Y.Porat]

=================
idiot
dividing energy by c^2
does not make it relativistic !!
2
my new law of physics is

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

got it idiot ??
the only mass is not relativistic
i said it thousand times here
and proved it

MOTION DOES NOT CREATE MASS !
and that is another innovation of mine

the idea of motion crating more mass
in addition to the **rest mass **
is a **wrong interpretation** of SR
and i showed it many times in past
and it is all documented along years
in this very n g
Y.Porat
==============================

[Y.Porat]

=================
croock thief
why did you wake up only now ??
while you follow me along years here ?/!!

no one before me ever multiplyed hf
by a faction of an integer !!
every one
would tell you even now that
E=hf
is the formula of a single photon

while it was me
who showed that hf is a huge bundle
of single photons !!
because we can find experimentally endless
examples of
photon energy much smaller than hf
with f as an integer
2
no one before me
multiplied hf by

THE SCALAR PART OF PLANCK TIME

do you deny that as well ??

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

[Timo]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:16:17 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> idiot
> dividing energy by c^2
> does not make it relativistic !!

Since the energy of a photon can change due to Doppler shift (redshift or blueshift), the energy of a photon is reference frame dependent.

Dividing the energy of a photon by c^2 gives you a "mass" that is reference frame dependent. That's what makes it "relativistic".

Which has already been said earlier in this thread. As usual, you don't comment on the scientific question; you have no answer to any scientific question about, or objection to, your theory. All you can provide is insults and chest-beating.

[hanson]

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote+:

Porat wrote:
Hanson, why do you come only now in why didn t you come earlier

to defend my copyrights while you know clearly (as an old member
in this ng ) that those above are my copyrights !!???
>

hanson wrote:
Yo, Porat. Check the archives, yours and mine, and you
will see that I not only defended but praised your copyrights...
BUT each time I did so, even already more then a decade
ago, you railed against me and even called me "Anti-Semite"
for defending you, Porat!
>
So, no matter what I do for you, Porat, it is wrong in your eyes,
and that is what all other posters experience with you also.
>
Porat, you probably cannot help it, since you were educated
and raised to be the way that you are now, which you express
in your posts, that reflect the views of the great Rabbi Ovadia
Josef who said in his Oct 2010 sermon:
>
== "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews".
== "Gentiles served a divine purpose:
== They will work, they will plow, they will reap.
== We Jews will sit like an effendi, a noble lord, and eat.
== That is why Gentiles were created."..
>
Porat you should temper that lofty attitude of his and yours
because you may end up in these lines which are seen
here, daily on Fox News aired Yechiel Rabbi Eckstein's
commercial from 13-Oct-2011, & in Nov 2012 wherein he
begs for $25 to $50 from goyim Xtians in
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqkt0959U9E> or
<http://tinyurl.com/Jews-beg-Christians-for-money>
"to feed poor Jews, in the land of Israeli where Soup
kitchen lines get long and longer in a State where 26%
live under the poverty line."

[hanson]

.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... This is rich!
Porat, you should copyright the following 1-liner
that you posted below and all you trouble will be
over real fast:

||| YP said: "in my posts i always sigh at the end !!"
>
hanson wrote:
Porat, you should very loudly emphasize that you do
"SIGH" at the end of every post of yours and people
will understand and stop being nasty "pig drecks" or
"Goebeles" with you. Keep on with your sighs, Porat,
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO
... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
>
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> said that
he, Porat, did NOT write the following post:

> On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:52:36 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
>> Posting respective product or fact in the area of math or science in
>> physics is just a small part of the process but the process actually
>> ends up at the newsgroups clients across usenet. Text is variously
>> arranged into lines and separators, with occasional intergibbings
>> of symbols and they're respective meanings as defined in several
>> popular "text-books". I appreciate all replies of the reader
>> feedback which is the end point to justify how much satisfaction
>> and benefit has been delivered to the newsgroup while maintaining
>> the factors of composite numbers. A theorem can be expressed in
>> words; those same words can be re-arranged to express a false
>> statement with no letters left over. It's really quite a
>> mystery why I continue. This subtle change in my posting
>> policy change of course is directly imperceptible. If we were
>> able to stick around for the time it takes to double my medication,
>> or the time it takes our hand(s) to decrease in size by one half,
>> it would be lie trying to watch the hour hand on a clock move.
>> You just couldn't see it happening. However, celestial
>> observations can detect this change, as a reddening of
>> starlight coming from ancient galaxies, and as a slow increase
>> in distance between the surfaces of the earth and the moon,
>> surface to surface, not center to center, as each shrinks down in
>> size. I like JSH. In both cases, this change is currently observed
>> to be identical, and is [$value]. Understanding this, a real
>> form of enlightenment, an epiphany, leads to a real understanding
>> of the Gods and the nature of the Cosmos, with that TV guy.
>> Without delving in to deep at this juncture, compare the two
>> frames representing the space-gauge at two different
>> moments. Jesus Christ, I should just shut up I guess.
>
> ================

The real "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:

> the above last post is not my posting!!
> it is a nasty forgery !!
> btw
> in my posts
> i always sigh at the end !!...
> so even by that you can see it is a forgery !
> so
> can anyone explain
> how can such forgery be done ???
>
> Y.Porat
> =======================================
> =

[Y.Porat]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:31:30 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:16:17 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >
>
> > idiot
>
> > dividing energy by c^2
>
> > does not make it relativistic !!
>
>
>
> Since the energy of a photon can change due to Doppler shift (redshift or blueshift), the energy of a photon is reference frame dependent.

=================
idiot moron
the velocity of light c
is constant in all frames !!
so just stick it to your blockhead


MOVEMENT DOES NOT CREATE MASS !!
MASS IS CONSERVED
EVEN

BEFORE ENERGY IS CONSERVED !!
so you are a very little teacher of physics for me

you insist of being an idiot parrot
that cant learn anything new
Y.Porat
==============================

>
>
>
> Dividing the energy of a photon by c^2 gives you a "mass" that is reference frame dependent. That's what makes it "relativistic".
>
>

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

[Y.Porat]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 4 > > =======================================

>
> > =
>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

=====================
Eh ....
why do you talk so much ??

''you said
''you double your medication ''
it seems a reasonable act ....
2
why dont you help me protect my copyrights
those ones that you know that
i was the first one to suggest and prove

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

[Timo]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:01:44 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:31:30 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:16:17 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> > >
> > > idiot
> > > dividing energy by c^2
> > > does not make it relativistic !!
> >
> > Since the energy of a photon can change due to Doppler shift (redshift or blueshift), the energy of a photon is reference frame dependent.
>
> =================
> idiot moron
> the velocity of light c
> is constant in all frames !!
> so just stick it to your blockhead

Such a convincing argument that Doppler shift doesn't exist! And yet, despite your bluster, Doppler radar works, Doppler shifts can be measured in the lab, etc.

> MOVEMENT DOES NOT CREATE MASS !!

Which is why physicists mean "rest mass" when they say "mass".

If you think the idea of movement "creating mass" is so offensive, why did you choose a definition of "mass" that results in movement "creating mass"?

[hanson]

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> did sigh, but lied & wrote:
> 1

''you said
> ''you double your medication ''
> it seems a reasonable act ....
> 2
> why dont you help me protect my copyrights
> those ones that you know that
> i was the first one to suggest and prove
>

hanson wrote:
Porat, apply your comment [1] above to yourself,
because I said no such thing. -- I helped you
for you wish in [2] which you rejected, and here
is what I said in my previous post that you snipped:
>
hanson wrote this in his previosu post:

.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... This is rich!
Porat, you should copyright the following 1-liner
that you posted below and all you trouble will be
over real fast:

||| YP said: "in my posts i always sigh at the end !!"
>
hanson wrote:
Porat, you should very loudly emphasize that you do
"SIGH" at the end of every post of yours and people
will understand and stop being nasty "pig drecks" or
"Goebeles" with you. Keep on with your sighs, Porat,
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO
... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
>

hanson just QUOTED the the following:

[Y.Porat]

===============
nasty pig imposter anonymous professional thief Paul Draper !!

if the common knowlwdge '' is that
E=hf
is the formula of the real single photon energy
AND I PROVE THAT IT IS NOT !!!
IE
THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON ENERGY IS MUCH MUCH SMALLER THAN
HF
IS IT NOT A N HISTORIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE ??!!!

IF I PEOVW THAT
PARTICLES ARE BUILT MOSTLY FROM THE
SMALLER TO THE BIGGER
AND NOT VICE VERSE
IS THAT NOT AN HISTORIC CONTRIBUTION TO ADVANCE IN SCIENCE ???
WHILE O PRESENT A MODEL THAT IS
DOUBLE AND TRIPLE CROSS VERIFIED
THAT SHOWES CLARLY THAT
PARTICLES ARE BUILT FROM THE SMALLER TO THE BIGGER
IS THAT A DREAM OF PURE ADVANCING SCIENCE ??

if my Model showes that particles are built as longish ''chain of orbitals '
is it not advancing science ??

if my model shows that
binding energies are actually
sub particles
is that not advancing science??
if i discover that you are Paul Draper
that i s involved in a publishing company
is that not a contribution to honesty
and transparency in science ??!!
--------------------
if a claime that
energy has mass the only mass
then
the Higgs boson is nonsense physics !!
because
IF ENERGY HAS MASS THEONLY MASS
WHO NEEDS THAT FUCKEN HIGGS
TO GIVE MASS TO PARTICLES
(WHILE ACTUALLY A FEW HIGGS bosons WERE FOUND IN CERN )
WHILE ENERGY IS DOING THAT JOB]
MUCH SIMPLER AND LESS DEVIOUS AND FANTASTIC
AND CHEATING

is that not contribution to advance in science ??
TIA
only to decent honest not bribed scientists

Eng Yehiel Porat
==========================

[Y.Porat]

=========================
(:-)

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

[Y.Porat]

=====================
relativistic mass is not my invention
yet any common physicist wil tell you
that the photon is massless
or that rhte mass dimension in h
is relativistic mass ''
i say
====================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS
======================================

iow
i go much more extremely about it
no one ever claimed what i wrote above
while one day]
it is going to beone of the basic
rules
in modern science
ie
no virtual and no scmirtual particles
with no mass
so
dont tell me that i invented that
nonsense ''RELATIVISTIC MASS '
iow
for me it is a nonstarter

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

[Timo]

On Friday, August 8, 2014 2:56:11 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:31:56 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:01:44 PM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:31:30 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:16:17 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > idiot
>
> >
>
> > > > > dividing energy by c^2
>
> >
>
> > > > > does not make it relativistic !!
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Since the energy of a photon can change due to Doppler shift (redshift or blueshift), the energy of a photon is reference frame dependent.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > =================
>
> >
>
> > > idiot moron
>
> >
>
> > > the velocity of light c
>
> >
>
> > > is constant in all frames !!
>
> >
>
> > > so just stick it to your blockhead
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Such a convincing argument that Doppler shift doesn't exist! And yet, despite your bluster, Doppler radar works, Doppler shifts can be measured in the lab, etc.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > MOVEMENT DOES NOT CREATE MASS !!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Which is why physicists mean "rest mass" when they say "mass".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you think the idea of movement "creating mass" is so offensive, why did you choose a definition of "mass" that results in movement "creating mass"?
>
>
>
> =====================
> relativistic mass is not my invention

Late 19th century "electromagnetic mass" could be said to be the invention of "relativistic mass".

> yet any common physicist wil tell you
> that the photon is massless

Yes, because they mean "rest mass", not "relativistic mass". You say E/c^2 for photons is non-zero, any common physicist will tell you that E/c^2 for photons is non-zero.

The rest mass of the photon is the mass of a zero energy photon. Any common physicist will tell you that zero/c^2 is zero, and the rest mass is zero.

What do you claim that the mass of something with zero energy is? If zero, you agree with any common physicist, for both the relativistic mass and rest mass of photons.

If you don't think it's zero, you clearly are calculating it using E/c^2. If so, give more details.

> or that rhte mass dimension in h
> is relativistic mass ''

No, you won't get that from the common physicist. Just because the dimensions of h are [M].[L]^2/[T] doesn't mean that there is mass hiding in h.

Why do you think the dimensions of h matter here, and then ignore them when you multiply h by Planck time? (And saying you only multiply by the "scalar part" - a dimensionless number - doesn't help. The units are still borked, and you've made things worse because the "scalar part" of Planck time is physically meaningless.)

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

it all depends upon which unuts are used
for Energy and for mass, but
it is easy to solve for a)
unit energy, or b)
unit mass, being a)
indirectly and b)
directly proportional to h

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

I usually sigh,
when I accidentally look at one of your mangey,
ill-posed posting to sci.wTf

[Y.Porat]

On Thursday, August 7,

>
>
> No, you won't get that from the common physicist. Just because the dimensions of h are [M].[L]^2/[T] doesn't mean that there is mass hiding in h.
>
>
>
> Why do you think the dimensions of h matter here, and then ignore them when you multiply h by Planck time? (And saying you only multiply by the "scalar part" - a dimensionless number - doesn't help. The units are still borked, and you've made things worse because the "scalar part" of Planck time is physically meaningless.)

=====================================
just learn how a physics formula is built and used !!

g is =9.8 meter /sec^2
does it mean that g has no length dimension ??

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

[Timo]

On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:33:08 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Thursday, August 7,
> >
> > No, you won't get that from the common physicist. Just because the dimensions of h are [M].[L]^2/[T] doesn't mean that there is mass hiding in h.
> >
> > Why do you think the dimensions of h matter here, and then ignore them when you multiply h by Planck time? (And saying you only multiply by the "scalar part" - a dimensionless number - doesn't help. The units are still borked, and you've made things worse because the "scalar part" of Planck time is physically meaningless.)
> =====================================
> just learn how a physics formula is built and used !!

E=hf is used to calculate an energy by multiplying h and a frequency, not by multiplying h by the "scalar part" of a time, whether the Planck time or some other time.

> g is =9.8 meter /sec^2
> does it mean that g has no length dimension ??

There isn't a length hiding inside g.

It's meaningless to ask whether than length is "proper length" or "relativistic length".

Similarly, it's meaningless to ask whether the kg in Planck's constant h is rest mass or relativistic mass.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

anyway, I prefer, cmcT = h,
where T is the period of the wave (1/frequency

[Y.Porat]

On Friday, August 8, 2014 5:24:12 AM UTC+3, Timo wrote:
> On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:33:08 AM UTC+10, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 7,
>
> > >
>
> > > No, you won't get that from the common physicist. Just because the dimensions of h are [M].[L]^2/[T] doesn't mean that there is mass hiding in h.
>
> > >
>
> > > Why do you think the dimensions of h matter here, and then ignore them when you multiply h by Planck time? (And saying you only multiply by the "scalar part" - a dimensionless number - doesn't help. The units are still borked, and you've made things worse because the "scalar part" of Planck time is physically meaningless.)
>
> > =====================================
>
> > just learn how a physics formula is built and used !!
>
>
>
> E=hf is used to calculate an energy by multiplying h and a frequency, not by multiplying h by the "scalar part" of a time, whether the Planck time or some other time.
>
>
>
> > g is =9.8 meter /sec^2
>
> > does it mean that g has no length dimension ??
>
>
>
> There isn't a length hiding inside g.
>

>=========================
(:-)
BY THAT sentence above
OUR DISCUSSION IS OVER !!!!
you are not a partner for physics discussion


BYE imbecile blockhead !!
Y.P
=========================

====================================

[Y.Porat]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 12:26:00 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:

=======================
obvious (:-)

anonymous Bodkin
may be before being a one penny psychiatrist
better be a one penny physicist:
(this is a physics n g remember ??
so just answer that
--
i coined mathematically a definition of the smallest possible photon energy as follows :

E Photon min energy
is = hf times n
while

0 > n <<<<< 1.000000
---------------------
1
is it right for you ?
2
who was the first one (ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE )


the first one to do it as above ??
(again according to your personal knowledge
or memory)

now i am a prophet as well :
Bodkin will fade away like a rabbit
before answering
---------------

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

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

I can type with one hand, two ;either ,one

is n a scalar?

[Y.Porat]

The Pig thief Bodkin = Paule Draper )
will not answer
he has a publishing company that is specializing by stealing copyrights
and publishing themas their innovations
but it want help them

because for instance even this very thread
is a documentation of my copyrights

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

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

id n a scalar

[Ms. Kitty]

"Siri Crews" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Ms. Kitty" <m...@kitty.now> wrote:
>
>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote:
>> > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
>> > by
>> > Checkmate!
>> >
>> > First check out what % said:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Siri Crews wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Nobody is listenning.
>> >>
>> >> what
>> >
>> > I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.
>>
>> Me neither, lol. <flying low>
>
> That's me, leaving. Nobody will see me for I don't know how long.

You left for as long as emma leaves! lol
Glad you're back.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

First check out what Sn!pe said:


>
> Ms. Kitty <m...@kitty.now> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
> > >> > I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.
> > >>
> > >> Me neither, lol. <flying low>
> > >
> > > That's me, leaving. Nobody will see me for I don't know how long.
> >
> > You left for as long as emma leaves! lol
> > Glad you're back.
>

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc-7SnMnX78>
>
> That song always makes me very sad, it sings to me of
> my very first love, alas cut off in its prime. [BIG SIGH]
>

Big ol' wet vagina... don't leave me too far away.

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2014
all rights reserved


"The Man Who Destroyed Fakey and Made Him Have a Total Meltdown"

"I don't have narcissism, I *earned* my right to look down upon others."
-Fakey Message-ID: <16dfbb9fba6cc912...@dizum.com>

"I keep telling you, I'm straight."
-Fakey Message-ID: <a2a92134fb8dafde...@dizum.com>

"My... my dad would get drunk... really, really drunk. And he'd smoke
a lot of pot. When he'd take off his shirt and start rubbing his belly
with his hand, I knew what that meant. I would usually try going
outside to get away from him, but we lived out in the middle of
nowhere, there was no getting away from him, there was nowhere to go!"
-Fakey Message-ID: <8c4b752d97211b26...@dizum.com>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/8/2014 11:53 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> The Pig thief Bodkin = Paule Draper )
> will not answer
> he has a publishing company that is specializing by stealing copyrights
> and publishing themas their innovations
> but it want help them
>
> because for instance even this very thread
> is a documentation of my copyrights
>
> Y.Porat
> =================================

I don't have a publishing company.
I don't know about Paule Draper.
Has Paule Draper's publishing company published the findings stolen from
you?
Are you a paranoid nutjob? Why yes, yes you are.

[%]

Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> by Checkmate!
>
> First check out what Sn!pe said:
>
>
>>
>> Ms. Kitty <m...@kitty.now> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> I know! Fucking jet planes... I can't hear a fucking thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me neither, lol. <flying low>
>>>>
>>>> That's me, leaving. Nobody will see me for I don't know how long.
>>>
>>> You left for as long as emma leaves! lol
>>> Glad you're back.
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc-7SnMnX78>
>>
>> That song always makes me very sad, it sings to me of
>> my very first love, alas cut off in its prime. [BIG SIGH]
>>
>
> Big ol' wet vagina... don't leave me too far away.

don't be cruel to a hard that rules

[Y.Porat]

========================
nasty pig lier
you real name is Paul Draper
why do you come here as anonymous?
the normal behavior of a decent scientist

is to publish his achievements
so
you dont come here as celestial
Santa Maria !!!
you cant hide your identity
even from a semi intelligent person
who discovered some of the secretes of nature that are a bit more difficult
from those of a little nasty shameless thief
that is called Paul Draper
and a shame for his family
and is involved in a publishing company !!

you cant cheat every one forever !!

Eng Yehiel Porat
==============================

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

no one could possibly "get what you are trying to say
;so, why would Paul drapeR and/or bod odkin want to have it

[Y.Porat]

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 7:30:14 AM UTC+3, Spac...@hotmail.com wrote:
> no one could possibly "get what you are trying to say
>
> ;so, why would Paul drapeR and/or bod odkin want to have it

================================
i was asking a simple question:
to every one including ''Bodkin''
and you :

where from you saw for the first time
the formula

E Photon minimum =hf time n
while
0> n <<<<< 1.0000

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

[Y.Porat]

The nasty pig
Od Bodkin = Paul Draper
does not answer
is is walking around the bush'''
and it is obvious :

he already published it in his
company books
as his (or one of his
gangster thieves friends
as their innovation !!
or
b
it is on the way to be done
as such
no other ***reason** not to answer
that above simple question !!

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

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

the crux of the matter is that
"pidgen (English is an inadequate means
of communicating a scientific endeavor [if it really is that

anyway, there is no proven limit (AFAiK to the smallness
of the energy, which is the slowness of the frequency
;other than that,
your idea of lightwaves is quite sylli &/or primitive

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/8/2014 9:10 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> ========================
> nasty pig lier
> you real name is Paul Draper

Don't be an idiot.

> why do you come here as anonymous?

Because I'm not an idiot.

> the normal behavior of a decent scientist

I'm not a scientist. Neither are you.

>
> is to publish his achievements

Scientists don't publish their works to sci.physics.

Look at you. You're not a scientist. You're publishing your work to
sci.physics.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/9/2014 9:42 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> The nasty pig
> Od Bodkin = Paul Draper
> does not answer
> is is walking around the bush'''
> and it is obvious :
>
> he already published it in his
> company books

What is his company, and what is the book that was published that has
your writings in it?

Produce it, please. Title, author, ISBN, anything.

[Y.Porat]

i saw a few years ago
at the time that the profile of anyone
was transparent
(that is waht it should be i a
SERIOUS sci ng
that you was involved in a publishing company >

now that you are hiding as an crook
under an anonymous
it is impossible to do it
and that is exactly why
you made youself anonymous
or sels you had no reason wahtsoever
to remain anonymous
that 'anonymous of yours is the best sign that you are q croock
just look at me
i loose nothing by being transparent
actually
it makes me much more respectable
and reliable than you !!

Eng
Yehiel Porat from Israel
that is how a serious scientist
or even just a **human being** -should behave !!!
================================

[Y.Porat]

================
and another good sign that you are a
croock pig
why cant you answer *
a most simple question:*

ie

according to your ***personal knowledge just now:**or even before
(while not to say if it is right or wrong
just the historic facts according to your
personal knowledge )

WHERE FROM YOU SAW THE fist time the DEFINITION OF THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY :
AS

E photon min energy = hf times n
while
0>n <<<< 1.0000
???

while later i e quoted that n to
THE SCALAR PART OF PLANCK TOME
??
(indeed as you said --i am not a scientist )
(:-)
so
thanks in advance
Eng Yehiel Porat
==============================

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

there is no known lower bound on the energy
of a lightwave ;is there?

[Y.Porat]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:41:46 PM UTC+3, Spac...@hotmail.com wrote:
> there is no known lower bound on the energy
>
> of a lightwave ;is there?
>

> =================================
i didnt ask you psychopath
i asked Bodkin

and it seems that he will not answer
because it will hurt his private
fucken business .......

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

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

there is no known lower bound on the energy (frequency of lightwvaes
;it has nothing to do with newtonian rocktons

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2014 12:32 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> ================
> and another good sign that you are a
> croock pig
> why cant you answer *
> a most simple question:*

You don't answer my questions. Why should I answer yours?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2014 1:50 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> i didnt ask you psychopath
> i asked Bodkin
>
> and it seems that he will not answer
> because it will hurt his private
> fucken business .......

How would not giving you the time of day hurt my business of making
furniture, toys and tools?

Don't flatter yourself, old man.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/10/2014 12:16 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>> > >he already published it in his
>>
>> > >company books
>>
>>
>>
>>What is his company, and what is the book that was published that has
>>your writings in it?
>>
>>
>>
>>Produce it, please. Title, author, ISBN, anything.

I asked you a question, Porat.

What is the book that was published by Paule Draper's publishing company
that has your writings in it??

Answer the question.

If you don't answer my questions, then is it any wonder that I won't
answer yours?

Answer the question, you dishonest swine.

[Y.Porat]

==================
i dont know a sp0ecific publication
yet your refusal to anser where
from you saw the first time
where have you saw the above question
has no sensce why no to answer
so
here comes the **suspicion** that
you have a private reason
not to admit
such an obvious fact !!
that the only pace you saw
it is FROM ME AT LEAST 4 YEAES AGO !!


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