Science > Physics > The smallest common denominator for photon energy .
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Y.Porat" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2007 01:34:01 AM |
| Object: |
The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
here is an unprecedented suggestion
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
second
the smallest one
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
.
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 01:55:20 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there will by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured with the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp ), that has a continuous spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual lines with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the continuous
ones?
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorphotos
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this need to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence, and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how shallow
and insignificant you really are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 02:31:32 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there will by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured with the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual lines with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this need to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence, and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
Y.P
----------------
Y.P
--------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 02:43:12 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990292.676587.71370@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there will
by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured with
the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous
spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual lines
with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer
molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the
continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this need
to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence, and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how
shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
Typical response
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
Of course I do .. although what you are talking about is usually called a
common factor (not a common denominator)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
So .. are you saying you cannot see that you need extremely precise results
(more precise that the supposed common factor for differences between photon
frequencies.
Also you are assuming that there even ARE gapes between photon frequencies.
How would you actually go about finding such gaps to determine if they
exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 03:10:39 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 10:43 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990292.676587.71370@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there will
by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured with
the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous
spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual lines
with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer
molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the
continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this need
to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence, and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how
shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
Typical response
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
Of course I do .. although what you are talking about is usually called a
common factor (not a common denominator)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
So .. are you saying you cannot see that you need extremely precise results
(more precise that the supposed common factor for differences between photon
frequencies.
Also you are assuming that there even ARE gapes between photon frequencies.
How would you actually go about finding such gaps to determine if they
exist?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
the Superfertz inventor wahnt to teach us physics and logic :
(:-)
listen jumping momket crook :
it was me who told you about the problem of
photon energies of EV compared to the h energy
right ??
now you present it as your claim??
2
th ejumping monkey does not understand that
if apparently ev size mesured energies
are not accuarte enough tomake conclusions
IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGHAS WELL
TO YOUR OPPOSTE CLAIME !!
that there isnt a common denomiantor
right ??
you will never admit anything
as a Goebeless pupil !!...yet not all the other readers
are fools !!
3
you ddint get the idea
thatif you atke a big enough smpale
that include a lot of data
including samlle measured photon energies
and process it STATISTICALLY
youcan get a statistical result
of a common denominator
but no ne that is
locked on a notion that it is imposible
will be able to do it !!
you are not an objecive actor
you are a biased actor
sojust leave it to others
that are not biased
and revage seakers for revealing you
as the momentous **Super Fertz inventor** !!!
Y.P
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 03:36:21 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186992639.372717.166470@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 10:43 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990292.676587.71370@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in
continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there
will
by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency
measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured
with
the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous
spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a
rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual
lines
with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer
molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because
this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the
continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being
the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this
need
to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence,
and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how
shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
Typical response
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
Of course I do .. although what you are talking about is usually called a
common factor (not a common denominator)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
So .. are you saying you cannot see that you need extremely precise
results
(more precise that the supposed common factor for differences between
photon
frequencies.
Also you are assuming that there even ARE gapes between photon
frequencies.
How would you actually go about finding such gaps to determine if they
exist?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
the Superfertz inventor wahnt to teach us physics and logic :
I didn't invent it
And no .. I'm not trying to teach"us" physcis and logic .. I'm trying to
teach you. And YOU have not come up with any logical physics reason why
such a photon could not exist .. but again, you're diverting from the topic
of your own thread again
(:-)
listen jumping momket crook :
What is a "momket" ?
it was me who told you about the problem of
photon energies of EV compared to the h energy
right ??
WTF is "h energy"?
now you present it as your claim??
What claim do you think I am making here?
2
th ejumping monkey does not understand that
if apparently ev size mesured energies
are not accuarte enough tomake conclusions
Not conclusions that you are proposoing
IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGHAS WELL
TO YOUR OPPOSTE CLAIME !!
that there isnt a common denomiantor
right ??
You're the one making claims. Not me
you will never admit anything
as a Goebeless pupil !!...yet not all the other readers
are fools !!
No .. only you
3
you ddint get the idea
thatif you atke a big enough smpale
that include a lot of data
including samlle measured photon energies
You mean like in the continuous spectrum of sulfur lamps?
Are you suggesting that if we take samples of the frequencies at regular
intervals, we'll find the intervals are regular?
and process it STATISTICALLY
Ohhh... STATISTICALLY .. that's a big word Porat
youcan get a statistical result
of a common denominator
but no ne that is
locked on a notion that it is imposible
will be able to do it !!
If there are discrete frequencies that are large enough for your experiment
to detect, we'd have seen them already as gaps in the spectra for Em
radiation.
you are not an objecive actor
Yes .. I am
you are a biased actor
No .. I am not
sojust leave it to others
that are not biased
and revage seakers for revealing you
Why would I want revenge. you set yourself as the personal enemy of
everyone who understands and tried to explain physics. Your'e the one with
the bias here.
as the momentous **Super Fertz inventor** !!!
As much as I'd like to take credit, I didn't invent it. I just said "yes"
when you asked if it were possible for such a photon to exist. There's no
reason why it could not AFAIK .. and you've never provided a reaons why not,
other than your futlie attempts at ridicule.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 03:59:30 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 11:36 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186992639.372717.166470@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 10:43 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990292.676587.71370@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in
continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there
will
by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency
measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured
with
the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous
spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a
rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual
lines
with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer
molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because
this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the
continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being
the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this
need
to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence,
and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how
shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
Typical response
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
Of course I do .. although what you are talking about is usually called a
common factor (not a common denominator)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
So .. are you saying you cannot see that you need extremely precise
results
(more precise that the supposed common factor for differences between
photon
frequencies.
Also you are assuming that there even ARE gapes between photon
frequencies.
How would you actually go about finding such gaps to determine if they
exist?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
the Superfertz inventor wahnt to teach us physics and logic :
I didn't invent it
And no .. I'm not trying to teach"us" physcis and logic .. I'm trying to
teach you. And YOU have not come up with any logical physics reason why
such a photon could not exist .. but again, you're diverting from the topic
of your own thread again
(:-)
listen jumping momket crook :
What is a "momket" ?
it was me who told you about the problem of
photon energies of EV compared to the h energy
right ??
WTF is "h energy"?
now you present it as your claim??
What claim do you think I am making here?
2
th ejumping monkey does not understand that
if apparently ev size mesured energies
are not accuarte enough tomake conclusions
Not conclusions that you are proposoing
IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGHAS WELL
TO YOUR OPPOSTE CLAIME !!
that there isnt a common denomiantor
right ??
You're the one making claims. Not me
you will never admit anything
as a Goebeless pupil !!...yet not all the other readers
are fools !!
No .. only you
3
you ddint get the idea
thatif you atke a big enough smpale
that include a lot of data
including samlle measured photon energies
You mean like in the continuous spectrum of sulfur lamps?
Are you suggesting that if we take samples of the frequencies at regular
intervals, we'll find the intervals are regular?
and process it STATISTICALLY
Ohhh... STATISTICALLY .. that's a big word Porat
youcan get a statistical result
of a common denominator
but no ne that is
locked on a notion that it is imposible
will be able to do it !!
If there are discrete frequencies that are large enough for your experiment
to detect, we'd have seen them already as gaps in the spectra for Em
radiation.
you are not an objecive actor
Yes .. I am
you are a biased actor
No .. I am not
sojust leave it to others
that are not biased
and revage seakers for revealing you
Why would I want revenge. you set yourself as the personal enemy of
everyone who understands and tried to explain physics. Your'e the one with
the bias here.
as the momentous **Super Fertz inventor** !!!
As much as I'd like to take credit, I didn't invent it. I just said "yes"
when you asked if it were possible for such a photon to exist. There's no
reason why it could not AFAIK .. and you've never provided a reaons why not,
other than your futlie attempts at ridicule.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
if you dont like it
just ***** of and thats all
just leave it for others
that are more cleaver and moer ehonest than you are
go discuss with Gisse about your superfertz
BYE
Y.P
------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:30:39 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186995570.504244.145080@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
if you dont like it
just ***** of and thats all
just leave it for others
that are more cleaver and moer ehonest than you are
I don't think there is anyone more honest than I .. probably some more
clever .. obvsiouly many who are not
go discuss with Gisse about your superfertz
BYE
How about you take your silly physics ideas and stick them on your website,
instead of polluting theses forums with your nonsense .. there's enough
other nonsense without you cluttering it up further
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:05:27 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 12:36 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186992639.372717.166470@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 10:43 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990292.676587.71370@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in
continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there
will
by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency
measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured
with
the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous
spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a
rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual
lines
with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer
molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because
this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the
continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being
the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this
need
to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence,
and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how
shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
Typical response
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
Of course I do .. although what you are talking about is usually called a
common factor (not a common denominator)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
So .. are you saying you cannot see that you need extremely precise
results
(more precise that the supposed common factor for differences between
photon
frequencies.
Also you are assuming that there even ARE gapes between photon
frequencies.
How would you actually go about finding such gaps to determine if they
exist?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
the Superfertz inventor wahnt to teach us physics and logic :
I didn't invent it
[...]
He thinks you are some dude from mid-2004 who mentioned the physical
possibility that the Earth is generating electromagnetic radiation
with a period of one year. It moved on from there.
I'm actually surprised his memory can span 3 consecutive years, to be
honest.
What amuses me most is that in the time period /since/ the argument
took place, I have learned QM, SR, GR, classical mechanics,
thermodynamics, and classical electromagnetic theory. Plus the GR
stuff isn't a part of my course load.
Porat, on the other hand, hasn't learned a single fucking thing.
The one thing I remember from that discussion is that while the Earth
does generate radiation of that period, the interstellar [hell, the
interplanetary] plasma cannot support radiation with that frequency.
What's nice is that when the discussion started, I had to take this
for granted but now I have the background to take a course on space
physics in which these topics are discussed. Fun!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:24:36 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 12:05 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:36 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186992639.372717.166470@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 10:43 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990292.676587.71370@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:55 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186986841.290116.105090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
here is an unprecedented suggestion
Oh god no .. not another thread on this nonsense.
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
There isn't one. Energy and frequency of light (photons) in
continuous.
second
the smallest one
Same answer for the same reason.
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
Experimentally flawed due to the precision with which frequencies are
measured (see below)
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
Same problem
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
Well .. assuming you can get them all ot the same precision, there
will
by,
by definition, an LCM equal to the precision.
That tells us nothing other than how preceise the frequency
measurements
are.
And THAT is assuming that all the frequencies you use are measured
with
the
same precision. If they aren't, then you're in more trouble.
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
Well .. of you go. Get a light-source, like a sulfur lamp
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp), that has a continuous
spectrum
of frequencies and wavelengths. Try, say, refracting it to get a
rainbow
spectrum. If your theory is correct .. you should get individual
lines
with
distinct gaps in-between them.
NOTE: re sulfur lamps: "The sulfur plasma consists mainly of dimer
molecules
(S2), which generate the light through molecular emission. Because
this,
instead of atomic emission, is the mechanism of light generation, the
emission spectrum is CONTINUOUS throughout the visible spectrum."
See also the many specturms here (for visible light) .. see the
continuous
ones?http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html#colorp...
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
You and your silly copyrights .. all you are interested in is being
the
first to post anything at all in a newsgroup, no matter how stupid or
ill-concevied. You don't care about the physics, you just have this
need
to
be somehow have some importance and significance for your existence,
and
think that this will do it. Quite the opposite .. it just shows how
shallow
and insignificant you really are.
---------------
the imbecil crook
Typical response
cant understand what is
a common denomiantor ....(:-)
Of course I do .. although what you are talking about is usually called a
common factor (not a common denominator)
while speaking about acuracy of **all measure data **
So .. are you saying you cannot see that you need extremely precise
results
(more precise that the supposed common factor for differences between
photon
frequencies.
Also you are assuming that there even ARE gapes between photon
frequencies.
How would you actually go about finding such gaps to determine if they
exist?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
the Superfertz inventor wahnt to teach us physics and logic :
I didn't invent it
[...]
He thinks you are some dude from mid-2004 who mentioned the physical
possibility that the Earth is generating electromagnetic radiation
with a period of one year. It moved on from there.
I'm actually surprised his memory can span 3 consecutive years, to be
honest.
What amuses me most is that in the time period /since/ the argument
took place, I have learned QM, SR, GR, classical mechanics,
thermodynamics, and classical electromagnetic theory. Plus the GR
stuff isn't a part of my course load.
Porat, on the other hand, hasn't learned a single fucking thing.
The one thing I remember from that discussion is that while the Earth
does generate radiation of that period, the interstellar [hell, the
interplanetary] plasma cannot support radiation with that frequency.
What's nice is that when the discussion started, I had to take this
for granted but now I have the background to take a course on space
physics in which these topics are discussed. Fun!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
sohere we have another
superfertz man
(super fertz is a photon with one cycle per
100billion yreas
Gisse is suporting it (our universe is 15 billion years .(:-)
so go dsicuss with Jekyle not with me
2
afrer all your impressive education you support the
superfertz than it showes
what is your real value as a physicsit
or as a human being in general ..
BYE psychapth
Y.P
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:34:32 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186997076.570992.263490@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
sohere we have another
superfertz man
(super fertz is a photon with one cycle per
100billion yreas
Gisse is suporting it (our universe is 15 billion years .(:-)
You talk as though the age of the universe is somehow related to whether
such a photon could exist. It isn't
so go dsicuss with Jekyle not with me
You're the one who brought up the topic .. as you do continually .. If you
don't want to discuss it, don't mention it continually
2
afrer all your impressive education you support the
superfertz than it showes
what is your real value as a physicsit
or as a human being in general ..
Much more than your's and your wasted life, if all you're trying to be the
first to post nonsense with your name attached to a newsgroup. What a sad
way to finish your time on this planet.
BYE psychapth
Typical .. no physics .. just insults. That's all you're capable of, Porat
(and even then you can't even spell them correctly)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:45:00 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 12:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186997076.570992.263490@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
sohere we have another
superfertz man
(super fertz is a photon with one cycle per
100billion yreas
Gisse is suporting it (our universe is 15 billion years .(:-)
You talk as though the age of the universe is somehow related to whether
such a photon could exist. It isn't
so go dsicuss with Jekyle not with me
You're the one who brought up the topic .. as you do continually .. If you
don't want to discuss it, don't mention it continually
2
afrer all your impressive education you support the
superfertz than it showes
what is your real value as a physicsit
or as a human being in general ..
Much more than your's and your wasted life, if all you're trying to be the
first to post nonsense with your name attached to a newsgroup. What a sad
way to finish your time on this planet.
BYE psychapth
Typical .. no physics .. just insults. That's all you're capable of, Porat
(and even then you can't even spell them correctly)
-----------------
superfertz is not put of topic as long as
it showes with whom we are dealing here
bye superfertz
Y.P
---------------------
Y.P
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 05:54:41 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186998300.827087.281830@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 12:34 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186997076.570992.263490@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
sohere we have another
superfertz man
(super fertz is a photon with one cycle per
100billion yreas
Gisse is suporting it (our universe is 15 billion years .(:-)
You talk as though the age of the universe is somehow related to whether
such a photon could exist. It isn't
so go dsicuss with Jekyle not with me
You're the one who brought up the topic .. as you do continually .. If
you
don't want to discuss it, don't mention it continually
2
afrer all your impressive education you support the
superfertz than it showes
what is your real value as a physicsit
or as a human being in general ..
Much more than your's and your wasted life, if all you're trying to be
the
first to post nonsense with your name attached to a newsgroup. What a
sad
way to finish your time on this planet.
BYE psychapth
Typical .. no physics .. just insults. That's all you're capable of,
Porat
(and even then you can't even spell them correctly)
-----------------
superfertz is not put of topic as long as
it showes with whom we are dealing here
We all know.. we're dealing with a pathetic little uneducated old man trying
in vain to make a name for himself.
bye superfertz
Bye poor rat. No surprise that you are yet again unable to rationally
discuss physics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:27:26 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 1:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
BYE psychapth
Y.P
-----------------------
STOP responding to me if all you are going to do is whine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:31:30 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 12:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
BYE psychapth
Y.P
-----------------------
STOP responding to me if all you are going to do is whine.
---------------
i am not whinig you are and you should
now
i am not doingto dsicuss physics
with little Superfertzes !
(:-)
Y.P
--------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:37:06 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186997490.369607.113890@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 12:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
BYE psychapth
Y.P
-----------------------
STOP responding to me if all you are going to do is whine.
---------------
i am not whinig you are
Sad
and you should now
i am not doingto dsicuss physics
with little Superfertzes !
You couldn't discuss physics your life depended on it .. you don't know
enough of physics to carry on a rational discussion .. That's why you resort
to your standard mis-typed insults all the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 04:41:51 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 12:37 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186997490.369607.113890@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 12:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
BYE psychapth
Y.P
-----------------------
STOP responding to me if all you are going to do is whine.
---------------
i am not whinig you are
Sad
and you should now
i am not doingto dsicuss physics
with little Superfertzes !
You couldn't discuss physics your life depended on it .. you don't know
enough of physics to carry on a rational discussion .. That's why you resort
to your standard mis-typed insults all the time.
--------------
bye superfertz
Y.P
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 05:53:25 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186998111.329716.259260@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 12:37 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186997490.369607.113890@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 12:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
BYE psychapth
Y.P
-----------------------
STOP responding to me if all you are going to do is whine.
---------------
i am not whinig you are
Sad
and you should now
i am not doingto dsicuss physics
with little Superfertzes !
You couldn't discuss physics your life depended on it .. you don't know
enough of physics to carry on a rational discussion .. That's why you
resort
to your standard mis-typed insults all the time.
--------------
bye superfertz
Again .. you're a very sad little old man. You cannot argue my points of
physics, all you can do is ridicule and insult.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 01:38:18 AM |
|
|
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 01:47:08 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 9:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
----------------
another copyright of the great momentous physicsit
23 years old Eric Gisse
the moderator of this ng
(that cant find a day job...)
(:-)
please bypass the psychpath
Y.P
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 01:59:29 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186987628.641643.146660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
----------------
another copyright of the great momentous physicsit
23 years old Eric Gisse
the moderator of this ng
(that cant find a day job...)
(:-)
please bypass the psychpath
We try to .. but you keep posting, Porat. Haven't you suffered enough
embarrassment?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 02:27:56 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 9:59 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186987628.641643.146660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
----------------
another copyright of the great momentous physicsit
23 years old Eric Gisse
the moderator of this ng
(that cant find a day job...)
(:-)
please bypass the psychpath
We try to .. but you keep posting, Porat. Haven't you suffered enough
embarrassment?
------------
another crook psychoapth
he is rightly anonmous !!
Y.P
---------------------
Y.P
----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 02:43:56 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186990076.646224.140200@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:59 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186987628.641643.146660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
----------------
another copyright of the great momentous physicsit
23 years old Eric Gisse
the moderator of this ng
(that cant find a day job...)
(:-)
please bypass the psychpath
We try to .. but you keep posting, Porat. Haven't you suffered enough
embarrassment?
------------
another crook psychoapth
Indeed you are
he is rightly anonmous !!
Poor fool .. you put your name to the crap you post. That must be
embarrassing for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 03:00:33 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 9:59 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186987628.641643.146660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
----------------
another copyright of the great momentous physicsit
23 years old Eric Gisse
the moderator of this ng
(that cant find a day job...)
(:-)
please bypass the psychpath
We try to .. but you keep posting, Porat. Haven't you suffered enough
embarrassment?
----------------
the disturbed psychoapth crook jekyle
is talking about suffering humiliation: (:-)
he was discovered by me
as thecopyrighter of the momentous physics
of his
of the SUPERFERTZ IDEA !!
and want to teach me physics
th esuperfertz is for those who still ddint learn about it
is a phopton with
a frequancy of ..
listen carefully the genious ..:
one cycle per 100 .billion years !!!
got it ??
if not sart to learn from the anaumous crook imbecil
jekyle about the SUPERFERTZ !!!
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 03:29:51 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186992033.849745.140800@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:59 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186987628.641643.146660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 9:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Most stupid ideas are unprecedented...
----------------
another copyright of the great momentous physicsit
23 years old Eric Gisse
the moderator of this ng
(that cant find a day job...)
(:-)
please bypass the psychpath
We try to .. but you keep posting, Porat. Haven't you suffered enough
embarrassment?
----------------
the disturbed psychoapth crook jekyle
is talking about suffering humiliation: (:-)
Yeup .. it must be so emabarrssing for you
he was discovered by me
as thecopyrighter of the momentous physics
of his
of the SUPERFERTZ IDEA !!
No .. that was your idea to disucss ultra-low frequency photons .. you (or
someone else) coined the name for it.
and want to teach me physics
We are trying to .. it's an uphill battle as you insult everyone who tries
to.
th esuperfertz is for those who still ddint learn about it
is a phopton with
a frequancy of ..
listen carefully the genious ..:
one cycle per 100 .billion years !!!
got it ??
Yeup .. you keep talking about it all the time and asking if it is possible
... there is no reason why it could not be.
if not sart to learn from the anaumous crook imbecil
jekyle about the SUPERFERTZ !!!
So .. still waiting to hear how you'd conduct the experiment you are
proposing.
And if you can't manage that .. what rationale there is for suggesting there
is a 'common denominator for photon energy (bearing in mind the very lower
energies and long wavelengths of radio waves .. you'd think someone would
have noticed that certain radio frequencies are not possible).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 05:15:11 PM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 1:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
here is an unprecedented suggestion
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
second
the smallest one
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
What you are talking about is a kind of Millikan oil-drop experiment
for photon energies. It's not a bad idea out of the box. The problem
is that Millikan definitely found a least common denominator -- a
smallest unit of charge -- that was well within his resolution to
measure. Doing that today, we have no evidence of any least unit of
photon energy among the data that we have. We know that if there is
one, it is certainly smaller than h*(1 Hz), as our experimental
resolution is smaller than that. However, there is no apparently
"lumpiness" in available photon energies at any scale observed so
far.
You, however, are free to research the data that have been obtained to
date and reanalyze them yourself to look for a least common
denominator. It will be a bit harder challenge to get someone else to
do that work for you.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 09:34:17 PM |
|
|
On Aug 14, 1:15 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
here is an unprecedented suggestion
about how to find
first
the common denominator of all photon energies
second
the smallest one
so first:
to take **a big as possible *random sample *
of **measured *not calculated !) photon energies in the reference
frame they were created
and to try find the common denominator
*of all of them **
next stem
to try and find
**the smallest* common denominator !!
please note
IMHO
it is more efficient to take *not* the measured data
but
*differences* of close neighbor data measurements
IE
just to substrata any figure by the next one to it
and list the subs traction results in the line
to be tested instead of the original figures
and by that we get smaller figures to deal with
and closer tho the smallest because they are smaller
figures
and here is my prediction::
a common denominator for **all of them* will be found!
2
there might be a common denominator that will be
the smallest one
PS
i guess it is a computer job for statistic mathematicians
accompanied and revised by physicists ......
copyright Yehiel Porat 13-08-07
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
What you are talking about is a kind of Millikan oil-drop experiment
for photon energies. It's not a bad idea out of the box. The problem
is that Millikan definitely found a least common denominator -- a
smallest unit of charge -- that was well within his resolution to
measure. Doing that today, we have no evidence of any least unit of
----------------------
that i swhy i saied it only 'reminds me '
that experiment !!!
my job is a bit more difficult
or may be we will see later that it is not so difficult
but more difficult to explain it to dumb
prejudiced people ?? (;-)
---------------------
photon energy among the data that we have. We know that if there is
one, it is certainly smaller than h*(1 Hz), as our experimental
can you please bring experimental evidence ??
of photons
not of conglomerations of
'impure frequency ' photons as radio waves ??
and even so how lower is it than
one h
dio you as well support the
'Superfart'or even you understand that it is
a much bigger f than the 'Superfart'an
andif begger than the Superfart
it meane that for validated physics
f HAS A BOTTOM LIMIT ???
TIA only to PD
Y.Porat
----------------------
----------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The smallest common denominator for photon energy . |
13 Aug 2007 09:52:07 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187058857.146959.213360@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
can you please bring experimental evidence ??
of photons
not of conglomerations of
'impure frequency ' photons as radio waves ??
why do you think radio waves are impure? the are certaily much more pure
than sunlight.
and even so how lower is it than
one h
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum
They talk there about radio frequencies down to 3hz .. that's not far off
your 1hz photon with energy E = hf = h x 1Hz.
if 1hz was the common divisor (as you've claimed before), then we'd
ceratinly have found out about it by now.
What do you claim IS the lowest frequency (and not some answer with a vague
undefined "time unit" in it)?
.
|
|
| | | |
