"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[geistkiesel]

Quantum Quack once posed a query of whether or not there is a proof that light actually moves. I dismissed the question with a dogmatic shrug and wrote something embarrassing and trite, from my own perspective.

What are the experimental results of detection of light motion?

It is all speculative and convenient not to have any basic unresolved issue here in the third millennium such as resolving whether light moves or othewrwise.

We start with the question of light being either, 1. Particle, 2. Mass, or 3. Both.
1. Light when measured by a photomultiplier tube has told us that if light is mass the mass is very, very tiny. Likewise, light behaves unlike the mass of buck-shot as it seems to be wave then particle. Momentum tests are unhelpful in determining mass or wave characteristics to light.

2. If a wave the measurement in 1. above sheds little light on the basic characteristics of particle photon phenomena.

3. Diffraction experiments gave birth to the ‘wave and particle’ notion. It is concluded that the experimental apparatus affects the wave particle aspect of light, but again nothing gives a clue re motion.
If light were moving after flipping the switch at A, then a particle would mean the same stuff that left A was the same stuff that rang the photomultiplier tube’s bell. The problem with necessary mass formation in every instance of an emitted light pulse that is measured requires a convincing arm waving talent beyond the mortals and beyond understandable scientific principles.

I am leaving out much that is left to the reader to sort through.

If light moves as a wave then the stuff that left A was other than the stuff arriving at B which forces the discussion to describing a medium being perturbed that leaves a trace wherever the light happened to “be”. The forced tongue twister description of the true nature of the so called wave leaves much to mathematical speculation; to the extent that light can be manipulated even in this gross state of ignorance, hence the wave nature is left for after hours contemplation over a few ales at a friendly pub.

Dual descriptions offer even more complexities that defy rational analysis. The bottom line is that the current [or not too distant past] giants of science, whoever they may be, offer us solace by not making an issue of the impossible problem.

What happens when we look very deeply quantum mechanically? The locations of particles become smeared as we near the location of the particle 'under scrutiny'. We cannot discern wave, mass or structure, but we can surmise that no bunch of matter is “always” in some observable state in the sense that buck-shut doesn’t rapidly decay. Matter is there, and then it goes away. The stuff of matter, or some stuff, is generally understood as problematical, or a statistical reality. We only see stuff move that has accumulated a large observable bunch of problematical stuff seen as periodic excitations of matter in space.


What is light doing?

All we can say is that the light switch applies a potential to some part of a device that receives an energy pulse and likewise, must give a pulse that is absorbed by a near neighbor in space. Looking at space as a field of possible excitations, motion then becomes nothing more than the excitation of a point in space and where that excited point cascades through space analogous to the motion of falling dominoes.
There is, for sure, momentum exchanges that are straight forward in understanding. When a high energy photon is detected by human skin the momentum felt is simply the reaction of the target substance to the arrival of the near neighbor pulse.


So what is light doing?

When considering the apparent limitless energy of electron and nucleus holding onto each other, not as hooks, but as complex electro-nuclear systems, the illusion of identifiable quantities of stuff becomes undisguised. The energy and all possible forms of substances including the electric/nuclear fields of electron and nucleus in the final analysis are merely statistical and problematic.

Looking at the description simple mindedly, the motion of light as we once believed, has been transformed into the execution of a complex software package where motion, trajectory, momentum are just the manifestation of subroutines inherent in an object oriented program where the source code is identifiable, within limits, to the familiar laws of physic, as we know, or think we know the laws to be.:shrug:​

 

[Uno Hoo]

Scientists who have discovered the mathematical theory and also the observed results of the action of electromagnetic radiation in plasma ( where the permittivity and permeability are unusual) have long since taught us that the phase velocity can be a very wide range of speeds. Both lesser and greater than 186,000 miles per second. The greatest speed for EM taught to us by those scientists is that the phase velocity can be, and, has been observed to be, infinite.

An infinite speed means, in a supposedly closed universe, that a signal transmitted in a particular direction instantaneously strikes the transmitter in the back. It is as if the signal does not actually move but rather just changes location to come from behind whereas it had been projected to the front at first.

Such considerations regarding the action of light in plasma ( look up plasma frequency for a starter ), gives us a starting point for seriously investigating just what light is doing when we ordinarily consider it to be "moving" from one place to another.

I do not claim to know the answer. I do claim that this is a very interesting question.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack once posed a query of whether or not there is a proof that light actually moves. I dismissed the question with a dogmatic shrug and wrote something embarrassing and trite, from my own perspective.

I do appreciate the unexpected concession Giest. Thanks.

But I shall suggest that to get the full problem out in the open :
1. Science has yet to prove that distance exists across vaccum of space with out a time needed. if t=0 then d=0 thus light has no-where to travel.
2. That there is no ability to differentiate light from the reflector mass [ matter] that is used to detect it, thus light could [is] purely be a mass inertia [resonance] event across zero distance. The existance of matter allows the zero distance to have spaciality but no actual distance.
3. That if this is the case then the universal constants of gravity and inertia can be seriously investigated. [causation and not just effects]
4. That the development of worm holes, gateways and entanglements are very possible and as far as I am concerned quite real.

 

[James R]

We start with the question of light being either, 1. Particle, 2. Mass, or 3. Both.

Nothing can be mass - except mass.

1. Light when measured by a photomultiplier tube has told us that if light is mass the mass is very, very tiny.

I didn't realise that photomultiplier tubes measured mass.

Likewise, light behaves unlike the mass of buck-shot as it seems to be wave then particle. Momentum tests are unhelpful in determining mass or wave characteristics to light.

Really? Please explain these "momentum tests" and why they are unhelpful.

3. Diffraction experiments gave birth to the ‘wave and particle’ notion. It is concluded that the experimental apparatus affects the wave particle aspect of light, but again nothing gives a clue re motion.
If light were moving after flipping the switch at A, then a particle would mean the same stuff that left A was the same stuff that rang the photomultiplier tube’s bell. The problem with necessary mass formation in every instance of an emitted light pulse that is measured requires a convincing arm waving talent beyond the mortals and beyond understandable scientific principles.

Gee. This sounds so scientific. It must mean something. Er...

I am leaving out much that is left to the reader to sort through.

You're kidding!

If light moves as a wave then the stuff that left A was other than the stuff arriving at B which forces the discussion to describing a medium being perturbed that leaves a trace wherever the light happened to “be”.

What is transferred from A to B by a wave is not "stuff" - i.e. not matter.

The forced tongue twister description of the true nature of the so called wave leaves much to mathematical speculation; to the extent that light can be manipulated even in this gross state of ignorance, hence the wave nature is left for after hours contemplation over a few ales at a friendly pub.

Sounds like you wrote your entire post after hours of contemplating a few ales.

Scientists who have discovered the mathematical theory and also the observed results of the action of electromagnetic radiation in plasma ( where the permittivity and permeability are unusual) have long since taught us that the phase velocity can be a very wide range of speeds. Both lesser and greater than 186,000 miles per second. The greatest speed for EM taught to us by those scientists is that the phase velocity can be, and, has been observed to be, infinite.

Who observed this? When? Link please. Or cite the reference.

But I shall suggest that to get the full problem out in the open :
1. Science has yet to prove that distance exists across vaccum of space with out a time needed. if t=0 then d=0 thus light has no-where to travel.

You and geistkiesel make a good pair. Perhaps I should just leave you to it in the Pseudoscience forum.

Enjoy!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well James R you require proof and yet decline to give any.
Distance across a vacuum at t=0 has yet to be proved and is only being assumed to be valid.
What! I hear you say!.....yes well it is up to Science to prove what it claims and as yet I see no proof.
It is after all the "assumptions" that makes Science what it is yes?

Gotta remember of course that space or vacuum has rather interesting qualities according to SRT. It has the capacity or potential to accommodate non-simultaneity, different lengths and distances depending on velocity and all sorts of weird and wonderful things that Science has granted it.

So space or vacuum has all these potentials and possibilities and of course we [oops] Science assume that the distance is real in the first place at t=0

 

[geistkiesel]

“ Originally Posted by geistkiesel
We start with the question of light being either, 1. Particle, 2. Mass, or 3. Both. ”

Nothing can be mass - except mass.

The three options listed arfe those historically speculated posibilities describing the matter of electrons"

“ 1. Light when measured by a photomultiplier tube has told us that if light is mass the mass is very, very tiny. ”

I didn't realise that photomultiplier tubes measured mass.

What triggers the cascade of electrons?

From Wikipedia:
"Photomultiplier tubes (photomultipliers or PMTs for short), members of the class of vacuum tubes, and more specifically phototubes, are extremely sensitive detectors of light in the ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. These detectors multiply the signal produced by incident light by as much as 100 million times (i.e., 160 dB), in multiple dynode stages, enabling (for example) single photons to be detected individually when the incident flux of light is very low.

The combination of high gain, low noise, high frequency response, and large area of collection has earned photomultipliers an essential place in nuclear and particle physics, astronomy, medical diagnostics including blood tests, medical imaging, motion picture film scanning (telecine), and high-end image scanners known as drum scanners. Semiconductor devices, particularly avalanche photodiodes, are alternatives to photomultipliers; however, photomultipliers are uniquely well-suited for applications requiring low-noise, high-sensitivity detection of light that is imperfectly collimated. While photomultipliers are extraordinarily sensitive and moderately efficient, research is still underway to create a photon-counting light detection device that is much more than 99% efficient. Such a detector is of interest for applications related to quantum information and quantum cryptography. Elements of photomultiplier technology, when integrated differently, are the basis of night vision devices.'"

“ Likewise, light behaves unlike the mass of buck-shot as it seems to be wave then particle. Momentum tests are unhelpful in determining mass or wave characteristics to light. ”

[quoteR]=James ]Really? Please explain these "momentum tests" and why they are unhelpful.

Any experiments that result in some apparent motion- i.e a conservation of momentum tho contrary to the thesis of the thread .

“ 3. Diffraction experiments gave birth to the ‘wave and particle’ notion. It is concluded that the experimental apparatus affects the wave particle aspect of light, but again nothing gives a clue re motion.

If light were moving after flipping the switch at A, then a particle would mean the same stuff that left A was the same stuff that rang the photomultiplier tube’s bell. The problem with necessary mass formation in every instance of an emitted light pulse that is measured requires a convincing arm waving talent beyond the mortals and beyond understandable scientific principles. ”

Gee. This sounds so scientific. It must mean something. Er...

Your witless remarks are manifestationsa of the fact that you actually understand this simple model.

“ I am leaving out much that is left to the reader to sort through. ”

You're kidding!

Nobody expeccts you to do anything but act stupid with your tee-hee substitutions for something rational. It sounds like the classic down grading one puts to another in order to preserve a challenged sense of well being and confidence, AKA low self esteem. You should go talk to someone.

“ If light moves as a wave then the stuff that left A was other than the stuff arriving at B which forces the discussion to describing a medium being perturbed that leaves a trace wherever the light happened to “be”. ”

What is transferred from A to B by a wave is not "stuff" - i.e. not matter.


“ The forced tongue twister description of the true nature of the so called wave leaves much to mathematical speculation; to the extent that light can be manipulated even in this gross state of ignorance, hence the wave nature is left for after hours contemplation over a few ales at a friendly pub. ”

Sounds like you wrote your entire post after hours of contemplating a few ales.

I don't drink alcohol.

“ Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
Scientists who have discovered the mathematical theory and also the observed results of the action of electromagnetic radiation in plasma ( where the permittivity and permeability are unusual) have long since taught us that the phase velocity can be a very wide range of speeds. Both lesser and greater than 186,000 miles per second. The greatest speed for EM taught to us by those scientists is that the phase velocity can be, and, has been observed to be, infinite. ”

Who observed this? When? Link please. Or cite the reference.

Look out Uno Hoo, you've ruffled James R's feathers - Embarrass him Uno.

“ Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
But I shall suggest that to get the full problem out in the open :
1. Science has yet to prove that distance exists across vaccum of space with out a time needed. if t=0 then d=0 thus light has no-where to travel. ”

You and geistkiesel make a good pair. Perhaps I should just leave you to it in the Pseudoscience forum.

Enjoy!

Your Sarcasm, James R, reflects a major enhancement of your competence in scientific analysis, at least when compared to attempts at rational "'scientific discourse'' in reflection , or speculation, or considering a physical structure not described in the so called , "Standard Model"; This triggers your headaches and the onset of confusion -you are driven to your well documented demonstrations of childish atttantrums.

James R, have you ever been curious about anything?
Do feel powerful and in charge when
you move a thread to pseudoscience?:shrug:​

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Well James R you require proof and yet decline to give any.
Distance across a vacuum at t=0 has yet to be proved and is only being assumed to be valid.
What! I hear you say!.....yes well it is up to Science to prove what it claims and as yet I see no proof.
It is after all the "assumptions" that makes Science what it is yes?

Your unwillingness to learn or, more likely, inability to understand special relativity doesn't mean your claims about it are correct. You don't understand vectors and yet you try to proclaim things about vectors in special relativity.

It's like someone who can't speak French complaining that all French people can't communicate because their language is meaningless. No, it's your fault for not understanding. Special relativity seems to have worked in a great many areas of physics for about a century, which would suggest it's doing something vaguely right.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your unwillingness to learn or, more likely, inability to understand special relativity doesn't mean your claims about it are correct. You don't understand vectors and yet you try to proclaim things about vectors in special relativity.

It's like someone who can't speak French complaining that all French people can't communicate because their language is meaningless. No, it's your fault for not understanding. Special relativity seems to have worked in a great many areas of physics for about a century, which would suggest it's doing something vaguely right.

So uhm do you want to deal with the questions raised or just rub my illiteracy in my face?

Special relativity is fatally flawed but appears to serve reasonably well. IT provides science a mixed blessing. Not only did it provide many transient benefits it also provided you guys with your greatest obstacle to the growth of scientific knowledge.

The universal constants can not possibly exist as they do using SRT as a foundation. End of story.
IN fact if you can explain how the universal constant can poossibly be a constant using SRT 's ridiculous outcomes I will go he.

IT is impossible that gravity is a constant under an SRT paradigm and I can tell you now I don't need to know single mathematical formula to know this as a fact.

Given your wealth of knowledge and critical methodology this should be obvious to you as well and one wonders how you guys can be so blinded by your own arrogance.

Gravity, inertia and the postulate that physics applies universally is impossible under the SRT paradigm.

If they are I would love to know how it is possible for these constants to exist.
So one wonders which is more apppropriate for pseudo science this thread or Special Relativity Theory itself.

IN Fact I challenge you to show how the universe can possibly have any constants at all using SRT as your premise!
Will you accept the challenge?

 

[PieAreSquared]

Does light move?

Everything moves

 

[Quantum Quack]

Does light move?

Everything moves

They can't even prove light exists other than as an effect let alone moves! The same applies for gravity

 

[Quantum Quack]

IN Fact I challenge you to show how the universe can possibly have any constants at all using SRT as your premise!
Will you accept the challenge?

So I see no response...yet you want to tell me how illiterate I am....hmmmmm

 

[Uno Hoo]

JamesR, Omnipotent Administrator, asks for a reference re the phase velocity of EM being infinite in unusual circumstances of permeability and permittivity, such as, in a plasma.

Cheez. By the time a fizzist becomes employed and high-grade like JR, and a self proclaimed expert in Relativity, they should have long ago read about plasma frequency . It was first brought to light ( hey, a pun! ) in about 1908.

You want a reference, JR? You claim that you are so ignorant that you don't know anything about plasma frequency? I'll give you a reference. You will have to use at least minimal grade reading skills, so you might have a problem. WTH. Go and steal a copy of the book " Faster Than Light" by Nick Herbert, Ph.D.. It splains plasma frequency and infinite EM phase velocity in such simple terms that even you have a chance to understand it. But, I know, that is not a slam dunk.

Hey, baby, maybe you disagree with Nick Herbert, Ph.D.. If so, why don't you splain to us how and why the Ph.d. is wrong.

All ears.

 

[James R]

JamesR, Omnipotent Administrator, asks for a reference re the phase velocity of EM being infinite in unusual circumstances of permeability and permittivity, such as, in a plasma.

I looked up plasma frequency, but could find no mention of infinite phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation in any article on plasma frequency that I read.

Please provide a link to just one article that mentions the infinite phase velocity you refer to.

Thanks.

Cheez. By the time a fizzist becomes employed and high-grade like JR, and a self proclaimed expert in Relativity, they should have long ago read about plasma frequency . It was first brought to light ( hey, a pun! ) in about 1908.

How do you know what a self-proclaimed expert in relativity ought to have read? Are you a self-proclaimed expert in relativity?

You claim that you are so ignorant that you don't know anything about plasma frequency?

I know a little about it now. Please provide a link that supports your contention.

I'll give you a reference. You will have to use at least minimal grade reading skills, so you might have a problem. WTH. Go and steal a copy of the book " Faster Than Light" by Nick Herbert, Ph.D.. It splains plasma frequency and infinite EM phase velocity in such simple terms that even you have a chance to understand it. But, I know, that is not a slam dunk.

Hey, baby, maybe you disagree with Nick Herbert, Ph.D.. If so, why don't you splain to us how and why the Ph.d. is wrong.

Sorry. Don't have time to source that book just to please you, Uno Hoo. Do you have a web link? If this is really the simple stuff you say it is, you'd think it would be plastered all over the web. But I can't find it.

 

[PieAreSquared]

They can't even prove light exists other than as an effect let alone moves! The same applies for gravity

how about light through cesium ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/19/tech/main216905.shtml

Germans did it also

How about light through a Bose-Einstein condensate?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/program.html

chapter 10

NARRATOR: Lene Hau created a cigar-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate to carry out her experiment. She fired a light pulse into the cloud. The speed of light is around 186,000 miles per second, but when the pulse hits the condensate, it slows down to the speed of a bicycle.


they can speed it up and slow it down.. which pretty much tells me that it's moving

 

[Quantum Quack]

how about light through cesium ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/19/tech/main216905.shtml

Germans did it also

How about light through a Bose-Einstein condensate?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/program.html

chapter 10

NARRATOR: Lene Hau created a cigar-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate to carry out her experiment. She fired a light pulse into the cloud. The speed of light is around 186,000 miles per second, but when the pulse hits the condensate, it slows down to the speed of a bicycle.


they can speed it up and slow it down.. which pretty much tells me that it's moving

How about light through a Bose-Einstein condensate?

all this proves is that the condensate [ matter ] is exhibiting effects which have been attributed to our mythical photon. It does not prove the existance nor travelling of our photon just merely an effect.

how about light through cesium ?

all this proves is that the cesium [ matter ] is exhibiting effects which have been attributed to our mythical photon. It does not prove the existance nor travelling of our photon just merely an effect.

sorry try again....

and I might add it still fails to answer how the universal constant of gravity is possible using SRT as your premise.

"every single particle, organism, planet, star, galaxy, gas bubble, fairy floss sugar granual, across the entire universe share the "exact" same gravitational constant...hmmmmm "

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So uhm do you want to deal with the questions raised or just rub my illiteracy in my face?

Do you not think that your illiteracy plays a part in your inability to understand answers to questions you ask?

Special relativity is fatally flawed but appears to serve reasonably well. IT provides science a mixed blessing. Not only did it provide many transient benefits it also provided you guys with your greatest obstacle to the growth of scientific knowledge.

Actually, it's proven that special relativity is a valid consistent framework because it's basically geometry, though not Euclidean geometry. When Minkowski realised that you can phrase SR entirely in terms of rotations and translations and shifts of a particular kind of space, he made SR as valid as geometry.

The universal constants can not possibly exist as they do using SRT as a foundation. End of story.

Most constants have nothing to do with relativity. The charge of the electron for instance. Or the Newton's gravitational constant. Or the gas constant. Or speed of light even. You don't know much physics so your claims about problems are based on nothing but ignorance and bias.

IT is impossible that gravity is a constant under an SRT paradigm and I can tell you now I don't need to know single mathematical formula to know this as a fact.

Special relativity is not to be used when you want to include gravity. I've already told you that. When you want to include gravity you must use general relativity. It's like trying to use Newtonian physics to model non-Newtonian systems, of course you're going to get incorrect predictions, you're using the wrong tools!

Special relativity is not a gravitational theory. General relativity is. This is an excample of a very simple concept, which you are completely ignorant of!

If they are I would love to know how it is possible for these constants to exist.

No, you wouldn't 'love to know'. If you 'loved to know' you'd have found out more about relativity yourself. You'd not be mking such stupid claims on a forum if you 'loved to know', you'd have spent time reading books, learning the required courses needed to understand special and general relativity. You'd be competant at vector calculus and non-Euclidean geometry. You'd know multivariable calculus and you'd have learn Maxwell's electromagnetism.

But instead you post a bunch of BS based on ignorance after doing zero research and then proclaim you want information. No, you don't. You've too lazy and/or stupid to go find it yourself so your proclaimation is simply to try and make it seem like the onus is on me to teach you.

Name 2 books on special relativity you've got and read.

IN Fact I challenge you to show how the universe can possibly have any constants at all using SRT as your premise!
Will you accept the challenge?

Strawman. Where did I say anything about that? Where does anyone? Provide a detailed list of citations/references to back up your claim about universal constants and SR. I know about 'constants' (like the ones I mentioned), I know that its not SR which makes them constant. Infact, when you put together things like quantum mechanics and special relativity you find things which you previous thought of as constants (like the strength of electromagnetic interactions) are not constants. And in string theory (which includes special relativity) all 'constants' are determined by dynamical equations of motion.

Of course you don't knwo that because you don't know any physics. Thankfully, while you might call me arrogant and too caught up in my knowledge, that knowledge tells me you're wrong and why. Better to be confident in your knowledge and actually knowledgable than confident in your own knowledge and as ignorant as you. At least I'm justified in being confident.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Strawman. Where did I say anything about that? Where does anyone? Provide a detailed list of citations/references to back up your claim about universal constants and SR. I know about 'constants' (like the ones I mentioned), I know that its not SR which makes them constant. Infact, when you put together things like quantum mechanics and special relativity you find things which you previous thought of as constants

of course SRT doesn't but what SRT does do is it makes the constants impossible! And of course the Constants ARE Possible thus SRT is invalidated simply by the existance of the constants.
btw a theory doesn't "make" anything!

 

[Quantum Quack]

The point is that for SRT to be valid light must move at a rate that is invariant.

The question is proving that light actually moves in a way that is unambiguous.

Is it matter simply resonating on the surface or is it a photon wave/ particle that generates the effect?
As no one can detect a photon independant of an object of matter [ reflector ] then I ask why should I believe in the existance of a photon in the first place?
Can't see it, can't detect it and can't measure it independantly of matter.

So why can it not [ the effect] simply be a matter event and not attributed to an object that has yet to be proven to exist?

Thats the issue...


Show me a photon and I'll state with no problem that SRT is valid. But until then it is all pseudo religious gobidy gook.

You have knowledge and vast knowledge of only an effect! But you have created a cause that has yet to be shown to be real.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

of course SRT doesn't but what SRT does do is it makes the constants impossible! And of course the Constants ARE Possible thus SRT is invalidated simply by the existance of the constants.
btw a theory doesn't "make" anything!

1. You completely failed to provide a single reference/citation for your claim about what special relativity does or doesn't say. So until you can do that, why should I believe you? I'm certain I've done more relativity than you, along with pretty much any other area of physics you'd care to name, and what you're saying doesn't square up with what I know of special relativity.

Provide a source or STFU.

2. Your final sentence contradicts your first.

Is it matter simply resonating on the surface or is it a photon wave/ particle that generates the effect?

This sentence isn't even coherent. Also, given you don't know any quantum mechanics (or even dynamical systems involving resonances I'd wager), it seems you're just throwing out buzzwords you hope people will accept.

As no one can detect a photon independant of an object of matter [ reflector ] then I ask why should I believe in the existance of a photon in the first place?

Strawman and flawed logic. Given you can detect photons using materials that proves they exist. You are making up your own criteria for 'proof of existence'. Want proof photons exist? Well you're looking at it. Literally. Right now you're reading this text, which is being displayed on a computer monitor, which emits photons of a variety of frequencies, some of which are picked up by the retina in your eyes.

Or are you reading this using some kind of Braille computer?

Show me a photon and I'll state with no problem that SRT is valid. But until then it is all pseudo religious gobidy gook.

Firstly, the existence of photons doesn't mean SR is valid. Secondly, you're using the logic that if you don't understand something then it's "pseudo religious gobidy gook". Thirdly, if it's all "pseudo religious gobidy gook", why do we have such technologies like GPS trackers, which couldn't be built without relativity?

And finally, why didn't you answer my question? Name 2 books on special relativity you've got and read. What's the matter, aren't you man enough to admit there aren't any? It's my experience that whose who call into question the honesty of scientists are themselves very dishonest. You talk about how physicists are bending the truth or not providing justifications, yet you cannot even reply to a straight forward question relating to "So how do you know what physicists doing SR know?".

You're a fraud, a hypocrite and an idiot.

 

[Quantum Quack]

1. You completely failed to provide a single reference/citation for your claim about what special relativity does or doesn't say. So until you can do that, why should I believe you? I'm certain I've done more relativity than you, along with pretty much any other area of physics you'd care to name, and what you're saying doesn't square up with what I know of special relativity.

Provide a source or STFU.

what do you expect given the incredible belief in a flawed system or model. Your posts indicate the intensity of your fear that just possibly you are all wrong and all your hard work is wasted. Making such an incredible investment of time and energy into something that fails to reflect reality must be so dis-appointing.

The fear of being mistaken is so strong there is NO reference available for me to link to. People simply do not question something that they have so much belief in....[similar to a religious zealot] and burn any one who dares to question such a belief.

So burn me! 'Cause I am a questioning......

2. Your final sentence contradicts your first.
This sentence isn't even coherent. Also, given you don't know any quantum mechanics (or even dynamical systems involving resonances I'd wager), it seems you're just throwing out buzzwords you hope people will accept.

semantic crap... if you can prove distance exists at t=0 [across vacant space [ eath / moon as an example] with hard evidence then your point stands.
Resonance of matter across zero distance space...makes a lot of sense if you bother to open your mind to possibility. Light is an effect of inertia.

Strawman and flawed logic. Given you can detect photons using materials that proves they exist. You are making up your own criteria for 'proof of existence'. Want proof photons exist? Well you're looking at it. Literally. Right now you're reading this text, which is being displayed on a computer monitor, which emits photons of a variety of frequencies, some of which are picked up by the retina in your eyes.

Or are you reading this using some kind of Braille computer?

so you admit that the only way to detect a photon is with objects that reflect them, matter. So tell me how do you know it is a photon effect or simply a matter effect?
Resorting to flaming type statements is simply a waste of time...deal with the issue rationally if you can. I know you must find it extremely difficult given your fav. theory is theatened.

Firstly, the existence of photons doesn't mean SR is valid.

no photon no SR .....end of story and you know it.

Secondly, you're using the logic that if you don't understand something then it's "pseudo religious gobidy gook".

belief in an unprovable object is the same as belief in a religious icon. And you know it.

Thirdly, if it's all "pseudo religious gobidy gook", why do we have such technologies like GPS trackers, which couldn't be built without relativity?

The effects measured are quite real, there is no doubt about it, however the causation of those effects is what is in debate.

And finally, why didn't you answer my question? Name 2 books on special relativity you've got and read.

Prove I have something real to read about namely the existance of a photon and I will read it. [ and btw I know a great deal more about SRT than you probably think I do... as I had to self derive it by my self and used forums like this one to confirm the correlationships. So I know how the fraud has been perpetrated and sustained. I started with the Jupiter recordings of Rømer, 1676 and worked from there.

It is the same with reading the Bible or the Koran etc ...why would I waste my time unless it is for the poetry and some wisdoms offered?

I see no proof of a photon so SRT would be a waste of energy taking too seriously. I do however see evidence of an effect but this in no way proves the reality of a mythical photon. [ The light model only attempts to describe the causation of the effect and that model has yet to be proved correct in fact the existence of the universal constant of gravity proves it to be incorrect.]

What's the matter, aren't you man enough to admit there aren't any? It's my experience that whose who call into question the honesty of scientists are themselves very dishonest.

worth reading your own posts....

You talk about how physicists are bending the truth or not providing justifications, yet you cannot even reply to a straight forward question relating to "So how do you know what physicists doing SR know?".

and you still haven't dealt with the primary issue have you...and claim I am being dishonest....

You're a fraud, a hypocrite and an idiot.

the belief in the photon will go down in history as the greatest scientific fraud ever. A state of self delusion simply because scientists refuse to accept the reality of zero space t=0 thus d=0 thus the photon has no distance to travel through. [only objects of mass require distance and a modelled photon has no mass.][ as mass and matter provide the necessity of 3 dimensional spaciality with the advent of time (t=eternity) where as a massless object requires no dimensions including time thus t=0]

Opening to the very real possibility of hyper space travel, is not easy hey?