Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #598726 > unrolled thread

THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE, NOT LESS ENERGY -THAN E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE, NOT  LESS ENERGY -THAN  E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!! poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 16:47 -0700
    Re: THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE, NOT  LESS ENERGY -THAN  E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!! "Sam Smith" <moderator@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 07:16 -0700
    h-bar is h over twice pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:04 -0700
      Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 09:05 -0700
        Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 11:30 -0500
          ask why not, why noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:45 -0700
            Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:52 +0200
              Re: ask why not, why poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 01:52 -0700
                Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 11:03 +0200
                  Re: ask why not, why poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 03:21 -0700
                    Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:49 +0200
                      Re: ask why not, why noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:42 -0700
                        Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 22:55 +0200
                          Re: ask why not, why rbrteline@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 13:11 -0700
          Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 00:30 -0700
            Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
              Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 00:50 -0700
                Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:31 -0500
                  Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 09:05 -0700
                    Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:56 -0500
                      Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 11:11 -0700
                        Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 23:02 -0700
                (where is, isn't equality?)  h-bar is h over twice pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 10:41 -0700
                  Re: (where is, isn't equality?)  h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 23:33 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#598726 — THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE, NOT LESS ENERGY -THAN E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!!

THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE , NOT LESS ENERGY- THAN  E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!!

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#598782

Enough about photons!  Back from the massive acid trip, this Jesus Christ 
allegory lion, who from now on will be know as Aslan or Super President 
McAwesomeville, somehow managed to confiscate all the leaves from the Koala 
bears, making them all like “Yo bitch, we should join the pasty queen’s 
army, just so we can jump out of trees and rip them bitches faces off with 
our talons.” And this is completely true, because we all know that Koala’s 
only sit in the trees and don’t rip your fucking face off with their claws 
is because they are high off their asses every second of every day. And the 
only thing that can stop the koala bears is the animated purple elephant, 
who has been genetically altered with Boba Fett”s DNA in order to make the 
ultimate bounty hunter, who we are still going to kill off in the stupidest 
possible way. But we’ll come back to that later, mostly because without the 
10,000 dollars from FOX, we can’t include him until the climax of this 
narration, when purple Boba Fett squares off with Aslan, who has been 
genetically engineered with war horse. Imagine that, a fucking Jesus 
allegory lion, with missile launchers that come out of his back and laser 
eyes and a flame thrower mouth. But I digress; now back to the magical 
adventures of Steve and his best friend, a retarded horse named Willy The 
Unfortunate. As we regress we also would like to take the time to travel 
through a magical universe vortex to the land of Eternia, home to another 
hero who has sadly passed away named Heman who claims to have the power of 
the universe and his mortal enemy Skeletor. that’s right Skeletor, the 
mother fucking living skeleton who’s voice is just so annoying it makes 
little animals want to shoot themselves, like that one dog Paris Hilton 
owned. Well anyways Skeletor was doing his evil shit in the forest and Heman 
came up and well used his most famous line towards the boney villain “Hey 
Skeletor looks like you could use a good skull fucking!” And out of nowhere 
comes Admiral Ackbar, screeching “it’s a trap!!!!!” He is too late, as Heman 
already has his tiny field mouse cock in Skeletor’s empty eye socket, with 
the villain crying out in pain as Heman”s fun sized penis repeatedly 
penetrates his eye socket. Sorry just a quick realization here, but who 
would not be able to notice that Heman is Prince Adam? It’s an even worse 
disguise than Clark Kent as Superman, it’s just so obvious it’s painful. 
Like at least Clark Kent has the sense of mind to think to put on glasses, 
Prince Adam literally runs around with Heman’s sword strapped to his back 
and Heman’s fucking battle leopard with him, the only one in Eternia and no 
one could possibly think that Heman and Adam both have one, they must be the 
same person. We’re going to take a short commercial break to allow this 
insight to sink in.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598808 — h-bar is h over twice pi

yeah, but, so, what -- every physicist,
who has taken physicS One, knows that
cmc = fh, but
I'm not sure, which Planck's constant is used ... perhaps,
you mean h-bar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598950 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

בתאריך יום חמישי, 29 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 21:04:39 UTC+3, מאת noTthaTguY:
> yeah, but, so, what -- every physicist,
> who has taken physicS One, knows that
> cmc = fh, but
> I'm not sure, which Planck's constant is used ... perhaps,
> you mean h-bar
====================
why h bar??

just h as Planck used it !!
why complicate simple things 
in his famous experiments he defined h 
as the slope of a slope of an experimental results of
energy versus frequency 
just as simple as that
may be even he immediately 
didn't  understand/thought  that that h has a physics known meaning 
it looked at first place as  some
 just mathematical coefficient 

TIA
Y.Porat
========================
 
--
complicating things is good for 
demagogism !!
====
TIA
Y.Porat
=====================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598952 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

On 9/30/2016 11:05 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> why h bar??
>
> just h as Planck used it !!
> why complicate simple things
> in his famous experiments he defined h
> as the slope of a slope of an experimental results of
> energy versus frequency
> just as simple as that
> may be even he immediately
> didn't  understand/thought  that that h has a physics known meaning
> it looked at first place as  some
>  just mathematical coefficient
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ========================

Just a couple of comments.

1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying 
to explain data taken by other physicists.

2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point 
of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the 
distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had 
been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of 
energy from the oscillator (much like you do), and this continuum of 
energies led to a distribution of frequencies from a blackbody that 
didn't match measurements. What Planck proposed instead is that the 
amount of energy radiated by the oscillators is in fact not continuous 
but in smallest increments of hf.

http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Planck%20(1900),%20Distribution%20Law.pdf

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598984 — ask why not, why

bra -- why, h-bar or h - veaux

> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point 
> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the 
> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had 
> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of 
> energy from the oscillator (much like you do), and this continuum of 
> energies led to a distribution of frequencies from a blackbody that 
> didn't match measurements. What Planck proposed instead is that the 
> amount of energy radiated by the oscillators is in fact not continuous 
> but in smallest increments of hf.
> 
> http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Planck%20(1900),%20Distribution%20Law.pdf
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599025 — Re: ask why not, why

Dne 30/09/2016 v 22:45 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> bra -- why, h-bar or h - veaux

E = h . f = h_bar . omega

To avoid explicit 2.pi, resp (2.pi)^n factor
in the wave equation context,
it is advantage to work with angular velocity,
rather than with frequency.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599027 — Re: ask why not, why

בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 10:52:28 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
> Dne 30/09/2016 v 22:45 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> > bra -- why, h-bar or h - veaux
> 
> E = h . f = h_bar . omega
> 
> To avoid explicit 2.pi, resp (2.pi)^n factor
> in the wave equation context,
> it is advantage to work with angular velocity,
> rather than with frequency.
> 
>======================
so you say that  h f 
is not good enough for you ?
it gives other quantitative  e result ??

TIA
Y.Porat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599030 — Re: ask why not, why

Dne 01/10/2016 v 10:52 poraty350@gmail.com napsal(a):
> בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 10:52:28 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
>>
>> E = h . f = h_bar . omega
>>
>> To avoid explicit 2.pi, resp (2.pi)^n factor
>> in the wave equation context,
>> it is advantage to work with angular velocity,
>> rather than with frequency.
>>
>> ======================
> so you say that  h f 
> is not good enough for you ?
> it gives other quantitative  e result ??
> 
No, you say it, but I do not know why.

Where scientists work with f, it is more convenient to use h.
Where scientists work with omega, it is more convenient to use h_bar.

No big deal.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599032 — Re: ask why not, why

בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 12:03:56 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
> Dne 01/10/2016 v 10:52 poraty350@gmail.com napsal(a):
> > בתאריך יום שבת, 1 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 10:52:28 UTC+3, מאת Poutnik Fornntp:
> >>
> >> E = h . f = h_bar . omega
> >>
> >> To avoid explicit 2.pi, resp (2.pi)^n factor
> >> in the wave equation context,
> >> it is advantage to work with angular velocity,
> >> rather than with frequency.
> >>
> >> ======================
> > so you say that  h f 
> > is not good enough for you ?
> > it gives other quantitative  e result ??
> > 
> No, you say it, but I do not know why.
> 
> Where scientists work with f, it is more convenient to use h.
> Where scientists work with omega, it is more convenient to use h_bar.
> 
> No big deal.
=========================================
what is the connection between h 
and h bar 
TIA
Y.P
==================================
> 
> -- 
>  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599035 — Re: ask why not, why

Dne 01/10/2016 v 12:21 poraty350@gmail.com napsal(a):

> what is the connection between h 
> and h bar 
> TIA
> Y.P
> ==================================

Let suppose it is not a joke, but a real question
based on missing fundamental knowledge.

h_bar = h / (2.pi)

Usenet is very slow and inferior search engine.
You could know that for long time already,
asking Google instead.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599069 — Re: ask why not, why

angular velocity, of what.  anyway,
that was quite a creative attack on Planck,
to derive 2.7^-90, even if there is no longest wave
of light in frequency

> h_bar = h / (2.pi)
> 
> Usenet is very slow and inferior search engine.
> You could know that for long time already,
> asking Google instead.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599076 — Re: ask why not, why

Dne 01/10/2016 v 22:42 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> angular velocity, of what.  anyway,

of periodic phenomena e.g.a wave function.

> that was quite a creative attack on Planck,

There is not attack.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599293 — Re: ask why not, why

it was actually a matter of malapropism,
owing apparently to crappy English.  I mean,
the whole notion that there is a smallest momentum
of a wave of light, just doesn't do a goDDam thing

> > that was quite a creative attack on Planck,
> 
> There is not attack.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599024 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

בתאריך יום שישי, 30 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 19:30:10 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 9/30/2016 11:05 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> > why h bar??
> >
> > just h as Planck used it !!
> > why complicate simple things
> > in his famous experiments he defined h
> > as the slope of a slope of an experimental results of
> > energy versus frequency
> > just as simple as that
> > may be even he immediately
> > didn't  understand/thought  that that h has a physics known meaning
> > it looked at first place as  some
> >  just mathematical coefficient
> >
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ========================
> 
> Just a couple of comments.
> 
> 1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying 
> to explain data taken by other physicists.
==========================
who are those physicist "
or else you are mumblimg !!
and  why h f is related to Planck ??
---


> 
> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point 
> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the 
> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had 
> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of 
> e


eregy
========================================
so 
what is new in it
i discovered And proved that h f
is not the formula for the smallest amount of
the real single  photon energy !!
remember ??!!
==================


 from the oscillator (much like you do), and this continuum of 
> energies led to a distribution of frequencies from a blackbody that 
> didn't match measurements. What Planck proposed instead is that the 
> amount of energy radiated by the oscillators is in fact not continuous 
> but in smallest increments of hf.
----
so ??
h f is not the formula for net photon energy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
indeed 
did I say anything else ??
quite the opposite 
as I Sayed  above 

the smallest photon energy is 
E min = h f times n 
while 
0 > n <<<<1.000  !!
and you opposed it  !!!!
later I equated that n to 

THE ***SCALR  PART*** OF PLANCK CONSTANT  
about 
exp -34 !!!
and got the smallest photon energy !!!
and further by dividing it by c^2
got 
the mass of the smallest/single  photon 
to be about
exp - 90 kilogram !!!!!!!!
the   only kilogram !!!!!
----
not relativistic and not schmelativistic !!
remember??
--
it is all recorded in Google physics 
many   years ago !!!

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


> 
> http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Planck%20(1900),%20Distribution%20Law.pdf
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599073 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

On 10/1/2016 2:30 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שישי, 30 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 19:30:10 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
>> On 9/30/2016 11:05 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
>>> why h bar??
>>>
>>> just h as Planck used it !!
>>> why complicate simple things
>>> in his famous experiments he defined h
>>> as the slope of a slope of an experimental results of
>>> energy versus frequency
>>> just as simple as that
>>> may be even he immediately
>>> didn't  understand/thought  that that h has a physics known meaning
>>> it looked at first place as  some
>>>  just mathematical coefficient
>>>
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ========================
>>
>> Just a couple of comments.
>>
>> 1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying
>> to explain data taken by other physicists.
> ==========================
> who are those physicist "
> or else you are mumblimg !!
> and  why h f is related to Planck ??
> ---
>
>
>>
>> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point
>> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the
>> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had
>> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of
>> e
>
>
> eregy
> ========================================
> so
> what is new in it
> i discovered And proved that h f
> is not the formula for the smallest amount of
> the real single  photon energy !!
> remember ??!!
> ==================
>
>
>  from the oscillator (much like you do), and this continuum of
>> energies led to a distribution of frequencies from a blackbody that
>> didn't match measurements. What Planck proposed instead is that the
>> amount of energy radiated by the oscillators is in fact not continuous
>> but in smallest increments of hf.
> ----
> so ??
> h f is not the formula for net photon energy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to argue with you about what E=hf means. I've already 
answered your three questions definitively.

My comment above was simply that you have royally fucked up the history 
of Planck's contribution, both his role and his intent. It's plain that 
your story about what he did is something you made up, and I corrected 
what you made up and supplied the facts, which you should have looked up 
before opening your mouth.

> indeed
> did I say anything else ??
> quite the opposite
> as I Sayed  above
>
> the smallest photon energy is
> E min = h f times n
> while
> 0 > n <<<<1.000  !!
> and you opposed it  !!!!
> later I equated that n to
>
> THE ***SCALR  PART*** OF PLANCK CONSTANT
> about
> exp -34 !!!
> and got the smallest photon energy !!!
> and further by dividing it by c^2
> got
> the mass of the smallest/single  photon
> to be about
> exp - 90 kilogram !!!!!!!!
> the   only kilogram !!!!!
> ----
> not relativistic and not schmelativistic !!
> remember??
> --
> it is all recorded in Google physics
> many   years ago !!!
>
> Y.Porat
> =============================
>
>
>>
>> http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Planck%20(1900),%20Distribution%20Law.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599356 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:52:09 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/1/2016 2:30 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> > בתאריך יום שישי, 30 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 19:30:10 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> >> On 9/30/2016 11:05 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> why h bar??
> >>>
> >>> just h as Planck used it !!
> >>> why complicate simple things
> >>> in his famous experiments he defined h
> >>> as the slope of a slope of an experimental results of
> >>> energy versus frequency
> >>> just as simple as that
> >>> may be even he immediately
> >>> didn't  understand/thought  that that h has a physics known meaning
> >>> it looked at first place as  some
> >>>  just mathematical coefficient
> >>>
> >>> TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ========================
> >>
> >> Just a couple of comments.
> >>
> >> 1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying
> >> to explain data taken by other physicists.
> > ==========================
> > who are those physicist "
> > or else you are mumblimg !!
> > and  why h f is related to Planck ??
> > ---
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point
> >> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the
> >> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had
> >> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of
> >> e
> >
> >
> > eregy
> > ========================================
> > so
> > what is new in it
> > i discovered And proved that h f
> > is not the formula for the smallest amount of
> > the real single  photon energy !!
> > remember ??!!
> > ==================
> >
> >
> >  from the oscillator (much like you do), and this continuum of
> >> energies led to a distribution of frequencies from a blackbody that
> >> didn't match measurements. What Planck proposed instead is that the
> >> amount of energy radiated by the oscillators is in fact not continuous
> >> but in smallest increments of hf.
> > ----
> > so ??
> > h f is not the formula for net photon energy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you about what E=hf means. I've already 
> answered your three questions definitively.
> 
> My comment above was simply that you have royally fucked up the history 
> of Planck's contribution, both his role and his intent. It's plain that 
> your story about what he did is something you made up, and I corrected 
> what you made up and supplied the facts, which you should have looked up 
> before opening your mouth.
> 
> > indeed
> > did I say anything else ??
> > quite the opposite
> > as I Sayed  above
> >
> > the smallest photon energy is
> > E min = h f times n
> > while
> > 0 > n <<<<1.000  !!
> > and you opposed it  !!!!
> > later I equated that n to
> >
> > THE ***SCALR  PART*** OF PLANCK CONSTANT
> > about
> > exp -34 !!!
> > and got the smallest photon energy !!!
> > and further by dividing it by c^2
> > got
> > the mass of the smallest/single  photon
> > to be about
> > exp - 90 kilogram !!!!!!!!
> > the   only kilogram !!!!!
> > ----
> > not relativistic and not schmelativistic !!
> > remember??
> > --
> > it is all recorded in Google physics
> > many   years ago !!!
> >
> > Y.Porat
> > =============================
> >
> >
> >>
> >> http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Planck%20(1900),%20Distribution%20Law.pdf
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
=====================
idiot crock !!!

where in all **your formula
for   **net again net ** photon energy 

you have any
F en zero multiplier
or any ]
F en relativistic   multiplier 
to the MASS dimension ??!!!

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599372 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

On 10/4/2016 2:50 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:52:09 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>>>> ========================
>>>>
>>>> Just a couple of comments.
>>>>
>>>> 1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying
>>>> to explain data taken by other physicists.
>>> ==========================
>>> who are those physicist "
>>> or else you are mumblimg !!
>>> and  why h f is related to Planck ??
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point
>>>> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the
>>>> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had
>>>> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of
>>>> e

> =====================
> idiot crock !!!
>
> where in all **your formula
> for   **net again net ** photon energy
>
> you have any
> F en zero multiplier
> or any ]
> F en relativistic   multiplier
> to the MASS dimension ??!!!

As I said, I have no interest in your feeble and misguided attempts to 
do physics with dimensional analysis. You don't know what you're doing.

In the meantime, you have made a number of mistakes talking about the 
history of what Planck actually did, and you should really have taken 
the time to read up on what he actually did before opening your big yap 
with a guess.

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


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599402 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

בתאריך יום שלישי, 4 באוקטובר 2016 בשעה 15:31:15 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 10/4/2016 2:50 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:52:09 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >>>>> ========================
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a couple of comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying
> >>>> to explain data taken by other physicists.
> >>> ==========================
> >>> who are those physicist "
> >>> or else you are mumblimg !!
> >>> and  why h f is related to Planck ??
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point
> >>>> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the
> >>>> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had
> >>>> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of
> >>>> e
> 
> > =====================
> > idiot crock !!!
> >
> > where in all **your formula
> > for   **net again net ** photon energy
> >
> > you have any
> > F en zero multiplier
> > or any ]
> > F en relativistic   multiplier
> > to the MASS dimension ??!!!
> 
> As I said, I have no interest in your feeble and misguided attempts to 
> do physics with dimensional analysis. You don't know what you're doing.
> 
> In the meantime, you have made a number of mistakes talking about the 
> history of what Planck actually did, and you should really have taken 
> the time to read up on what he actually did before opening your big yap 
> with a guess.
> 
> >
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ===================================
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
========================
nasty   crook !!
the history of that h f formula 
is not relevant 
a crock like you should look only what is in its content 
2
you admitted that h f is an apprehensive formula
to define 
the energy of the photon 
no need for more additions 
and more obfuscation about it
as a  criminal  
is trying to do and sabotage 
some real advance
 ==============
next to some decent responsible human beings 
===
Y.Porat
=============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599678 — Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

On 10/4/2016 11:05 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> nasty   crook !!
> the history of that h f formula
> is not relevant
> a crock like you should look only what is in its content

Then you should have never attempted an account of the history of that 
formula. When you did, you botched it, which is what I called out. The 
mistake was YOURS, not mine. You were a fool to guess history that you 
did not know.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web