On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

Very good. It's yours. You can have it.
Unfortunately it is incompatible with experiment.
Single electrons -- definitely single -- have been observed to
interfere with themselves, and in fact they do it routinely.

Have you got any other postulates that are inconsistent with
experiment?
Remember, the value of a postulate is not its intuitiveness, but in
whether its implications agree with what's actually observed.


----------------
here you see again that advance in science
is done by trial and error !

Actually, no, not really. In your case it might be, but what you do
isn't science.


i noticed that my previous postulate
might not be unequivocal
so i decided to amend it more detailed

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

On Jul 2, 3:47 pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

Very good. It's yours. You can have it.


but i ddint hear that from Kekyle
or Gisse ?? how come you are efuting them ??
--
Unfortunately it is incompatible with experiment.
tha tis exacly waht is have to be
tested now

you cannot amke your verdict without
examining ity with me
(the orriginator and not only with youself
or others wexcept those of 'your school)
soare you ready toheare my claimes as well ??
or you made your verict and thats is
come what come may ...?
--------

--------
Single electrons -- definitely single -- have been observed to
interfere with themselves, and in fact they do it routinely.

i ddint dent that fact
now see my postulate
waht is your profe that an electron is
not composed of sub physical entitles ??!!

--

Have you got any other postulates that are inconsistent with
experiment?
yes
the photon!!!

you defined the energy of a single photon as

E photon =hf
nowmy question is :

hf is a human defintion of amountof energy
or is it natures definition of
A SINLE PHOTONM ??
is it possible for you that
hf is compsed of many sun physical entities ??
just to remid youin case you forgot

f is the number of wave cycles per .........and therfrore wave
lenghts .....
.......... per second !!!is a second or hour
invensions of nature
or is it an arbitrary deinition of human beings
???
why just per second and not per one hour ??!!

my humble claime is that
in one second less physical entito\ies are detected than in one hour
so what is detected during one secon]
is the sameas wwaht is detected duringone houer ?(for you it is the
same hf ist that so ??
------------

isit reasonable for you??now
you will tel me that theless reasonable
the more reaonable it is for QM
and end of verdict !! (full stop)
(because you said so ......)


----------


Remember, the value of a postulate is not its intuitiveness, but in
whether its implications agree with what's actually observed.

what would i do without you telling that !!!yet
the contribution of thsat sattement is good
as a good hand waving
testing is nice
but more nice is
to understand waht is your test
and waht are the interpretations of the results !!
and it is much more imporatnt to understand
what is a single photon entity !!
AS CREATED BY NATURE .. AND NOT BY ARBITRARY HUMAEN DEFINITIONS .
-------
----------



----------------
Actually, no, not really. In your case it might be, but what you do
isn't science.
----------

Thank you for teaching me what is scince
and how dvance in science is done

btw i still ddint hear from you
what is your contributions to the advance
of sciernce
now a reemrk top all the smartis here
please let PD answer
he is a big boy
and does not need help from anyone

TIA
Y.Porat

On Jul 2, 3:34 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 6:49 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 2, 5:03 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

groups.com...

That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub
divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

Still wrong

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

----------------
here you see again that advance in science
is done by trial and error !

Well. you've got the error part down pat. And your postare a trial.
But
no
advancement of science as a result

i noticed that my previous postulate
might not be unequivocal
so i decided to amend it more detailed

So .. give an example of such an physical entity.
-------------

1
photon

A Photon Interferes with itself

2
electron

An Electron Interferes with itself

Same with neutrons, protons, whole atoms, molecules etc

They can all interfere with themselves.

Your potulate is wrong

now about the photon
in the other thread of mine
you defined a single photon energy as
E=hf
right ??

I didn't define it .. that was done long ago. You've even used it
yourself

----------
2 the great use of my postulate will be
this one :

Hahaha .. what's the use of something that is WRONG!

once you will get a single physical entity that
'interferes with itself '
youwill be able to infere imediately
that
THIS PHYSICAL SINGLE ENTITY-
**CAN BE SUBDIVIDED *
OR IS ACTUALLY COMPOSED OF SUB PHYSICAL ENTITIES!!

Shame that's just plain wrong.

it will be mighty useful
and not jsut an abstarct postulate ??

Except its just wrong

can you stand it Mr .. (who .. sorryi dont know your name ..)
ie such an achievement from your
personal enemy ??

No acheivement at all .. you've not shown any achievements in physics so
far
.. just a lot of noise and nonsense

if not
lets see your achievements .......

No thanks .. I'm not playing your game- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

------------
Mr jekyle

who is the copyrighter
of the crackpot postulate above

Nobody cares. That all you're interested in is your supposed copyright and
not whether things are right or wrong just goes to show what a shallow
person you are, and how unimportant physics really is to you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------
just see waht pD said in his alst post
th epostulate is mine
Alass
what a disaster to admit
a crackpot postulate to Y,Porat !!
PD is honest and areasibnable enough to do it
fo ryou it i simpossible psychlogically
that is not a behaviur of a mature man
it is a behaviour either of a cook
or a little chield
take my word Jekyle
you ar e menthaly sick !!
(i dont know to what extent but sick !!
together with your friend GIsse )
and a crokk aswell:
one you are pushed to a corner
you satrt cicking in the air
wihtout sibge word of physics argument
what a sore looser !!

Y.Porat
-----------------

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 2, 3:47 pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

Very good. It's yours. You can have it.


but i ddint hear that from Kekyle
or Gisse ?? how come you are efuting them ??

I told you .. I don't care .. its pointless as its just nonsense. And you
claims at being first to say something, whether its true or not, are just
truly pathetic.

Unfortunately it is incompatible with experiment.
tha tis exacly waht is have to be
tested now

It alerady has .. its KNOWN that you are wrong ..and has been for a LONG
time now

you cannot amke your verdict without
examining ity with me
(the orriginator and not only with youself
or others wexcept those of 'your school)
soare you ready toheare my claimes as well ??
or you made your verict and thats is
come what come may ...?

What?

--------
Single electrons -- definitely single -- have been observed to
interfere with themselves, and in fact they do it routinely.

i ddint dent that fact
now see my postulate
waht is your profe that an electron is
not composed of sub physical entitles ??!!

a) Give us a phsyical entity that cannot be subdivided
b) it does NOT interfer with itself by spliting into multiuple sub-entities
that then interfere with themselves.

Have you got any other postulates that are inconsistent with
experiment?
yes
the photon!!!
you defined the energy of a single photon as
E photon =hf
nowmy question is :
hf is a human defintion of amountof energy
or is it natures definition of
A SINLE PHOTONM ??

NATURE's .. you've been told that already

is it possible for you that
hf is compsed of many sun physical entities ??

No

just to remid youin case you forgot
f is the number of wave cycles per .........and therfrore wave
lenghts .....
......... per second !!!is a second or hour
invensions of nature
or is it an arbitrary deinition of human beings
???
why just per second and not per one hour ??!!

You'd still get the same answer

my humble claime is that
in one second less physical entito\ies are detected than in one hour
so what is detected during one secon]
is the sameas wwaht is detected duringone houer ?(for you it is the
same hf ist that so ??

It has nothing to do with how many are detected in a given second .. gess
..you're SO DUMB!

------------

isit reasonable for you??now
you will tel me that theless reasonable
the more reaonable it is for QM
and end of verdict !! (full stop)
(because you said so ......)

More gibberish

Remember, the value of a postulate is not its intuitiveness, but in
whether its implications agree with what's actually observed.

what would i do without you telling that !!!yet
the contribution of thsat sattement is good
as a good hand waving
testing is nice
but more nice is
to understand waht is your test
and waht are the interpretations of the results !!

More gibberish

and it is much more imporatnt to understand
what is a single photon entity !!
AS CREATED BY NATURE .. AND NOT BY ARBITRARY HUMAEN DEFINITIONS .

That is what has been described already. A photon is NOT an arbitrary human
defintiion .. it is something observed in nature and described in physics.

Actually, no, not really. In your case it might be, but what you do
isn't science.
----------

Thank you for teaching me what is scince
and how dvance in science is done

Someone has to

btw i still ddint hear from you
what is your contributions to the advance
of sciernce
now a reemrk top all the smartis here
please let PD answer
he is a big boy
and does not need help from anyone

Whatever

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nobody cares. That all you're interested in is your supposed copyright
and
not whether things are right or wrong just goes to show what a shallow
person you are, and how unimportant physics really is to you.- Hide
quoted text -
----------
just see waht pD said in his alst post
th epostulate is mine

Again .. who cares .. its nonsense

Alass
what a disaster to admit
a crackpot postulate to Y,Porat !!

Again .. who cares .. its nonsense

PD is honest and areasibnable enough to do it

WHAT A JOKE !!!

fo ryou it i simpossible psychlogically
that is not a behaviur of a mature man
it is a behaviour either of a cook
or a little chield

Oh .. like you poor rat?

take my word Jekyle
you ar e menthaly sick !!

Yeah right .. from you that is a complement

(i dont know to what extent but sick !!
together with your friend GIsse )

You really need help

and a crokk aswell:
one you are pushed to a corner
you satrt cicking in the air
wihtout sibge word of physics argument
what a sore looser !!

**** off .. you pathetic little loser.

On Jul 2, 4:47 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 2, 3:47 pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

Very good. It's yours. You can have it.

but i ddint hear that from Kekyle
or Gisse ?? how come you are efuting them ??

I told you .. I don't care .. its pointless as its just nonsense. And you
claims at being first to say something, whether its true or not, are just
truly pathetic.

Unfortunately it is incompatible with experiment.
tha tis exacly waht is have to be
tested now

It alerady has .. its KNOWN that you are wrong ..and has been for a LONG
time now

you cannot amke your verdict without
examining ity with me
(the orriginator and not only with youself
or others wexcept those of 'your school)
soare you ready toheare my claimes as well ??
or you made your verict and thats is
come what come may ...?

What?

--------
Single electrons -- definitely single -- have been observed to
interfere with themselves, and in fact they do it routinely.

i ddint dent that fact
now see my postulate
waht is your profe that an electron is
not composed of sub physical entitles ??!!

a) Give us a phsyical entity that cannot be subdivided
b) it does NOT interfer with itself by spliting into multiuple sub-entities
that then interfere with themselves.

Have you got any other postulates that are inconsistent with
experiment?
yes
the photon!!!
you defined the energy of a single photon as
E photon =hf
nowmy question is :
hf is a human defintion of amountof energy
or is it natures definition of
A SINLE PHOTONM ??

NATURE's .. you've been told that already

is it possible for you that
hf is compsed of many sun physical entities ??

No

just to remid youin case you forgot
f is the number of wave cycles per .........and therfrore wave
lenghts .....
......... per second !!!is a second or hour
invensions of nature
or is it an arbitrary deinition of human beings
???
why just per second and not per one hour ??!!

You'd still get the same answer

my humble claime is that
in one second less physical entito\ies are detected than in one hour
so what is detected during one secon]
is the sameas wwaht is detected duringone houer ?(for you it is the
same hf ist that so ??

It has nothing to do with how many are detected in a given second .. gess
.you're SO DUMB!

------------

isit reasonable for you??now
you will tel me that theless reasonable
the more reaonable it is for QM
and end of verdict !! (full stop)
(because you said so ......)

More gibberish

Remember, the value of a postulate is not its intuitiveness, but in
whether its implications agree with what's actually observed.

what would i do without you telling that !!!yet
the contribution of thsat sattement is good
as a good hand waving
testing is nice
but more nice is
to understand waht is your test
and waht are the interpretations of the results !!

More gibberish

and it is much more imporatnt to understand
what is a single photon entity !!
AS CREATED BY NATURE .. AND NOT BY ARBITRARY HUMAEN DEFINITIONS .

That is what has been described already. A photon is NOT an arbitrary human
defintiion .. it is something observed in nature and described in physics.

Actually, no, not really. In your case it might be, but what you do
isn't science.
----------

Thank you for teaching me what is scince
and how dvance in science is done

Someone has to

btw i still ddint hear from you
what is your contributions to the advance
of sciernce
now a reemrk top all the smartis here
please let PD answer
he is a big boy
and does not need help from anyone

Whatever

-----------
you are an idiot and dsihonest
and not a partner for discussion
so let PD answer

Y.P
------------------

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 2, 4:47 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 2, 3:47 pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub
divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

Very good. It's yours. You can have it.

but i ddint hear that from Kekyle
or Gisse ?? how come you are efuting them ??

I told you .. I don't care .. its pointless as its just nonsense. And
you
claims at being first to say something, whether its true or not, are just
truly pathetic.

Unfortunately it is incompatible with experiment.
tha tis exacly waht is have to be
tested now

It alerady has .. its KNOWN that you are wrong ..and has been for a LONG
time now

you cannot amke your verdict without
examining ity with me
(the orriginator and not only with youself
or others wexcept those of 'your school)
soare you ready toheare my claimes as well ??
or you made your verict and thats is
come what come may ...?

What?

--------
Single electrons -- definitely single -- have been observed to
interfere with themselves, and in fact they do it routinely.

i ddint dent that fact
now see my postulate
waht is your profe that an electron is
not composed of sub physical entitles ??!!

a) Give us a phsyical entity that cannot be subdivided
b) it does NOT interfer with itself by spliting into multiuple
sub-entities
that then interfere with themselves.

Have you got any other postulates that are inconsistent with
experiment?
yes
the photon!!!
you defined the energy of a single photon as
E photon =hf
nowmy question is :
hf is a human defintion of amountof energy
or is it natures definition of
A SINLE PHOTONM ??

NATURE's .. you've been told that already

is it possible for you that
hf is compsed of many sun physical entities ??

No

just to remid youin case you forgot
f is the number of wave cycles per .........and therfrore wave
lenghts .....
......... per second !!!is a second or hour
invensions of nature
or is it an arbitrary deinition of human beings
???
why just per second and not per one hour ??!!

You'd still get the same answer

my humble claime is that
in one second less physical entito\ies are detected than in one hour
so what is detected during one secon]
is the sameas wwaht is detected duringone houer ?(for you it is the
same hf ist that so ??

It has nothing to do with how many are detected in a given second .. gess
.you're SO DUMB!

------------

isit reasonable for you??now
you will tel me that theless reasonable
the more reaonable it is for QM
and end of verdict !! (full stop)
(because you said so ......)

More gibberish

Remember, the value of a postulate is not its intuitiveness, but in
whether its implications agree with what's actually observed.

what would i do without you telling that !!!yet
the contribution of thsat sattement is good
as a good hand waving
testing is nice
but more nice is
to understand waht is your test
and waht are the interpretations of the results !!

More gibberish

and it is much more imporatnt to understand
what is a single photon entity !!
AS CREATED BY NATURE .. AND NOT BY ARBITRARY HUMAEN DEFINITIONS .

That is what has been described already. A photon is NOT an arbitrary
human
defintiion .. it is something observed in nature and described in
physics.

Actually, no, not really. In your case it might be, but what you do
isn't science.
----------

Thank you for teaching me what is scince
and how dvance in science is done

Someone has to

btw i still ddint hear from you
what is your contributions to the advance
of sciernce
now a reemrk top all the smartis here
please let PD answer
he is a big boy
and does not need help from anyone

Whatever

-----------
you are an idiot

No

and dsihonest

No

and not a partner for discussion

You seem incapable of rational discussion .. that's not my problem

so let PD answer

I'm not stopping him

On Jul 3, 3:07 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 4:47 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 2, 3:47 pm, PD wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

That should be my amended postulate No 10:

'In cases that *a single* physical entity - cannot be sub
divided --
** it cannot interfere with itself *!!

copyright Y.Porat 1-07-07

Very good. It's yours. You can have it.

but i ddint hear that from Kekyle
or Gisse ?? how come you are efuting them ??

I told you .. I don't care .. its pointless as its just nonsense. And
you
claims at being first to say something, whether its true or not, are just
truly pathetic.

Unfortunately it is incompatible with experiment.
tha tis exacly waht is have to be
tested now

It alerady has .. its KNOWN that you are wrong ..and has been for a LONG
time now

you cannot amke your verdict without
examining ity with me
(the orriginator and not only with youself
or others wexcept those of 'your school)
soare you ready toheare my claimes as well ??
or you made your verict and thats is
come what come may ...?

What?

--------
Single electrons -- definitely single -- have been observed to
interfere with themselves, and in fact they do it routinely.

i ddint dent that fact
now see my postulate
waht is your profe that an electron is
not composed of sub physical entitles ??!!

a) Give us a phsyical entity that cannot be subdivided
b) it does NOT interfer with itself by spliting into multiuple
sub-entities
that then interfere with themselves.

Have you got any other postulates that are inconsistent with
experiment?
yes
the photon!!!
you defined the energy of a single photon as
E photon =hf
nowmy question is :
hf is a human defintion of amountof energy
or is it natures definition of
A SINLE PHOTONM ??

NATURE's .. you've been told that already

is it possible for you that
hf is compsed of many sun physical entities ??

No

just to remid youin case you forgot
f is the number of wave cycles per .........and therfrore wave
lenghts .....
......... per second !!!is a second or hour
invensions of nature
or is it an arbitrary deinition of human beings
???
why just per second and not per one hour ??!!

You'd still get the same answer

my humble claime is that
in one second less physical entito\ies are detected than in one hour
so what is detected during one secon]
is the sameas wwaht is detected duringone houer ?(for you it is the
same hf ist that so ??

It has nothing to do with how many are detected in a given second .. gess
.you're SO DUMB!

------------

isit reasonable for you??now
you will tel me that theless reasonable
the more reaonable it is for QM
and end of verdict !! (full stop)
(because you said so ......)

More gibberish

Remember, the value of a postulate is not its intuitiveness, but in
whether its implications agree with what's actually observed.

what would i do without you telling that !!!yet
the contribution of thsat sattement is good
as a good hand waving
testing is nice
but more nice is
to understand waht is your test
and waht are the interpretations of the results !!

More gibberish

and it is much more imporatnt to understand
what is a single photon entity !!
AS CREATED BY NATURE .. AND NOT BY ARBITRARY HUMAEN DEFINITIONS .

That is what has been described already. A photon is NOT an arbitrary
human
defintiion .. it is something observed in nature and described in
physics.

Actually, no, not really. In your case it might be, but what you do
isn't science.
----------

Thank you for teaching me what is scince
and how dvance in science is done

Someone has to

btw i still ddint hear from you
what is your contributions to the advance
of sciernce
now a reemrk top all the smartis here
please let PD answer
he is a big boy
and does not need help from anyone

Whatever

-----------
you are an idiot

No

and dsihonest

No

and not a partner for discussion

You seem incapable of rational discussion .. that's not my problem

so let PD answer

I'm not stopping him- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------
so i am waiting for PD
(not to hide behind the backs of others .)

Y.P
-------------

On Jul 2, 4:53 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
[...]

so i am waiting for PD
(not to hide behind the backs of others .)

What makes you think Paul has any obligation to answer every inane
question you think up?


Y.P
-------------

On Jul 3, 6:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:53 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
[...]

so i am waiting for PD
(not to hide behind the backs of others .)

What makes you think Paul has any obligation to answer every inane
question you think up?





Y.P
-------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------

you said that you dont care abou tmy postes

hypocrit

go on and dont care and dont intervean
no one deeds you especially in my threads
we can manage niclely without
no one needs crooks in a physics discussion

PD will answer because
on the long run
i seem to be interesting for him
and i am an intellctual challenge for him

and he feels at the back of his mind
that i know soemthing he does not know
even if he will not admit it openly

Y.P
------------