Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 15:13 On Mar 23, 6:55 pm, "John Christiansen" <superkae...(a)mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:4ba899ec$0$8828$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:6c0d19bb-b079-4a62-be63-91cfb06037d6(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > >> On Mar 18, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Mar 4, 8:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > Here is mybetterdefinition about the range > >>> > in which the real single photon energy emission should be found (in > >>> > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > >>> > E single photon = hf n > > > Wrong. Experiment shows it is E = hf > > > You asserting contrary to experiment is nonsense > > >>> > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > >>> > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 > > > Wrong. Experiment shows it is n = 1 > > >>> > 2 > >>> > here is an astonishing by its simplicity -- experiment for it > > > There is *no* experiment that shows your E = nhf where n << 1.0 > > >>> > you need for it > > >>> > a > >>> > only a pocket calculator energized by photon electric cells > >>> > (actually it can be other devices that are activated > >>> > by photon electric cells ) > > >>> > b > >>> > a Led torch > >>> > c > >>> > the experiment must be in a background light > >>> > that **does not* activate the above Cells !!.. > >>> > iow light wave that is long enough > >>> > the old filament bulb is good enough fo rit ) > > >>> > so > >>> > 1 > >>> > light up your Led torch twards the photon electric cells > >>> > (for less than a second ****and turn it of**!! > > >>> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > >>> > (half or 1/4 second etc ) > > >>> > 2 > >>> > follow intensively what is happens in the screen of you calculator > >>> > the zero start figures are a ctivated and then > >>> > *disappear* > >>> > 3 > >>> > what do you get there ?? > > >>> > some hints: > >>> > you find that the** TIME DURATION** of the > >>> > calculator activation ('life time' )-- > > >>> > is OVERLAPPING THE** TIME DURATION* > >>> > OF THE TORCH **TIME DURATION!!** > > > Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT > > prove your > > nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >>> > (in our case less than a second > >>> > but more then zero time !!! > > > Of course .. the light provides the energy (via photons). That does NOT > > prove your > > nonsense claim that is contrary to experimental evidence. > > >>> > Q E D !! > > > There is no QED there > > >>> > historic copyright ! > > > Just more idiotic nonsense from Porat. Why copyright nonsense? > > >>> > Yehiel Porat > >>> > Mars 2010 > >>> > TIA > >>> > ------------------ > > >>> and only now after all this long tedious > >>> thred > >>> i can bring my > >>> bottom line 'side product ' (:-) > > > There is none > > >>> the sensational pick antic > >>> side product innovation > >>> punch line : > > >>> since we found in this thread that the > >>> smallest photon energy is : > > >>> 3.55 exp-77 Joules > >>> inorder to find the > > > No .. you found nothing of the sort > > >>> SMALLEST PHOTON ** MASS **!! > >>> th eonly thing we have todo it to divide that smallest energy by c^2 > >>> 9 exp16!! > >>> and we get > > >>> 3.55 exp-77 jOULES / 9 exp16 > >>> and we get the > >>> smallest PHOTON MASS : > > > Which is nonsense .. there is no smallest photon and no smallest photon > > mass (because photon mass is zero) > > >>> ===================== > >>> Smallest photon **mass** > >>> 3.9 exp -94 Kilograms !! > >>> ===================== > > > Nonsense .. even with === around it > > >>> and mind you > >>> there is jsut one kind of mass > >>> no relativistic and no Shmelativistic one > > > Yes .. one kind of mass .. just like one kind of length. > > > That does not mean you can measure a rest mass and measure a relativistic > > mass. They are both masses and have identical units. Just a measurement > > of > > different things. > > > Just like you can measure a width and a height .. they are both lengths > > >>> there is the MKS system > > >>> not ( M1 M2 M3 K S ) SYSTEM > >>> just the MKS > >>> and in other unit systems it can not be otherwise !! > > Just for clarification MKS stands for Meter Kilogram Second, M is NOT for > mass > > > > > noone is claiming otherwise .. you keep arguing things that noone is > > disputing as though they are. > > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> indeed fantastically small mass > >>> and only now you can start to understand why > >>> people said that the photon mass is > >>> practically zero!! > >>> but now i say > >>> practically is not necessarily theoretically !! > > > Yes .. theoretically > > >>> the theoretic understanding in this case is extremely important > > > You have no such understanding. You took a couple of arbitrary numbers > > and multiplied them together and claimed it was smallest photon energy. > > That is just nonsense. > > >>> **and you will understand now that it has even a use even in > >>> money saving uses !! > >>> from now on( i think) > >>> there is no use anymore to look for > >>> 'virtual particles WITH NO MASS' !!! > >>> because there is nothing like that > > >>> old Catto said : > >>> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > >>> so > > >>> to save a lot of human resources and not least save inexpensive > >>> TIME !!! > >>> for further advance . > > >>> copyright Yehiel Porat > >>> March 2010 > > > More nonsense copyrighted > > >>> TIA > >>> Y.Porat > >>> --------------------------------------- > > >> Paul Draper was defeated > >> and refuses to admit it !!! > > > Never happened. > > >> i was asking him two simple questions > >> 1 > >> is the Planck Time definition as > >> 3.44 exp-44 SECONDS.... > > > No. It is 1 in planck unit and in SI units it is around 5.39x10^-44 > > seconds. > > Its numerical value (like all measurments with dimensions) is dependent > > on the units of measure. > > >> (it is defined by seconds) > > > No .. it is not. Like any duration, it can be MEASURED in seconds (or any > > other unit) > > >> is it TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > > That is a nonsense question. A time duration is a time duration. What do > > you mean by a time dependent time duration? > > >> 2 > >> who was the first one to shggest > >> the Planck time > >> as > >> THE SHORTEST TIME DURATION FOR > >> THE SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY > >> TO BE EMITTED ?? > > > Me (as I recall) when I said photon emission takes place within the > > smallest quanta of > > time (if time is quantized). That was before your nonsense. > > > But I'm sure others have said that before you. > > >> ***AND HE REFUSES TO ANSWER IT!....) > > > He probably can't be bothered looking up thread histories to find out. > > That > > doesn't mean he is defeated. He would only be defeated if he replies "I > > don't know, you have defeated me" > > >> BTW > >> can anyone reveal > >> who is the nasty pig anonymous > >> that is less than one year on this ng !!!. > >> and is calling himself Inertial =artful > > > You are confused .. I am 'inertial' (and sometimes 'artful' when using a > > different news server) .. and you are the nasty pig. I thought that was > > obvious. sorry thank you you are right it was a typo mistake m i s meter k is kilograms and seconds is seconds th e important relevant thing to say here is that THE SECONDS DIMENSION IS THE SAME IN MKS **AND ** IN THE SI SYSTEM which i used for the plank time !! Thanks again Y.Porat ----------------
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 15:43 On Mar 23, 2:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > it is a very important development in physics > and you talk about childish behavior !! > just because your childish Ego > defending your 'status ' 'come what come may !! > you are an irresponsible scientist !!! > Y.P > ----------------------- I have little concern about the opinion of someone who, as an old man who should know better, pulls childish, schoolyard stunts.
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 16:47 On Mar 23, 9:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 2:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > it is a very important development in physics > > and you talk about childish behavior !! > > just because your childish Ego > > defending your 'status ' 'come what come may !! > > you are an irresponsible scientist !!! > > Y.P > > ----------------------- > > I have little concern about the opinion of someone who, as an old man > who should know better, pulls childish, schoolyard stunts. ---------------- speak physics arguments dont do cheap demagoguery hand waiving s old or not old is no the point quite the opposite ! while i started learning phyasics you went to the children garden !! worse than that you are a mathematician a philosopher but not a good physicist beyond a parrot you innovated nothing in your life in physics !!! old and experienced might well be an ADVANTAGE OF EXPERIENCE !! you still didnt got it that i am old and fit !! i bring physics arguments and you are HAND WAVING !!! you are JEALOUS like a little child !!! and dont hesitate to cheat not to mention that you stole my book!! if i am nothing than why is it that you was interested in my book - got it somehow *not from, me** !!! and ddint tell me about that ???!! (unless you had another name then !! which may be you specialized in changing names ...??!! Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Inertial on 23 Mar 2010 17:46 "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <nowhere(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:pan.2010.03.23.19.00.38(a)canonicalscience.com... > Y.Porat wrote on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:54:24 -0700: > >> On Mar 23, 3:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Y.Porat wrote: >>> >>> [snip all, unread] >>> >>> WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! WAAAHHHHHH! WAAAAAH! >> >> -------------------- >> Hi Eric >> where have you been allthat time? >> is i t possible that you are Inertial ?? (:-) > > Sometimes one is inside the other, but Eric and Inertial are > not the same person. You are filth.
From: Inertial on 23 Mar 2010 17:57
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e09978a4-2280-4350-8ebe-47a15993c5f1(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! >> > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second > RECORDED (just above ) facts >> > -------------------- >> >> > >> > ----------------------- >> >> Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time? > ---------------------- > not exactly! No . exactly. Do not try to STEAL his credit, you thief. > plank is no doubt a grat hero > but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy > his formula was > E=hf > full stiop)!!! That is what is it > but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!! No .. you have not shown anything of the sort > as far as i know > th ePlank time derivation > was not done by Plank > it was done later !!! "In physics, the Planck time, (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length.[1] The unit is named after Max Planck, who was the first to propose it." > 2 > plank ddint wrote his formula as > > E min photon = h times Plank time Of course not ,.. because THAT IS WRONG You can tell it is from simple dimensional analysis h has units of Energy * Time. planck time has units of Time so h * Plank time has units of Energy * Time * Time That is NOT energy. You formula is soundly refuted by basic physics > that is good as i showed with my experiment > for a huge number of single photons > not for a single photon > his formula was again > > E = hf Which is correct > and f is one second defined !! No .. it is not time dependent. A frequency is the same regardless of duration. > the suggested probebly for the first time > unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my > is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!! Yes .. photon creation and destruction takes place within a quanta of time.. We've been telling you this for weeks now. Now you STEAL the idea and claim it as yours > 2 > even you all along the discussions withyou > spoke about 'instantaneous * > and you explicitly insisted that > > 'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!' The energy of a photon is NOT time dependent > you repeated it again and again > and that is as well recorded !! Because it is true. E = hf does not have any time duration value in it .. it is a fixed quantity regardless of any duration > you can t now after all my fights here > come a twist your > instantaneous and not time dependent > to be instantaneous= as Plank time > instantaneous andnot time dependent is .... > ZERO TIME !!! As I explained time and time again .. photon emission and destruction tkes place in the smallest quanta of time. You STOLE that from me and tried to copyright it > ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE > in zero time > and no one (aFair) around me including you ! > said **then** that he agrees with me !! > that noting can be done in zero time !! > i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision > is not done instantaneously !!! > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks > here !! You are the crook. You stole the idea I posted. And to try to CHEAT you started a new thread away from the one where I posted that, and then claimed it was YOUR idea. What a dishonest unethical liar you are. And it is for all here to see. You have made a laughing stock of the name 'Porat'. I hope none of your children or grandchildren ever want to become scientists ... what a stigma their family name now bears .. all thanks to you. > so > sorry not much credit can be given even to you You get NONE .. not that you have said anything credit worthy .. just your nonsense E = h * tP which doesn't even make any physics sense. > the only credit that i can give you is > that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your > not being sure about the arguments in those threads > iow > you was doubtful about anything > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- > > > |