all you have dome is recnfirmed that science has an irrational belief in a model that involves a photon transiting from one object to another and hasn't got a shred of evidence to support it.
I notice that you decided to completely ignore the categorical proof I gave that you're a liar and decided to simply continue lying. How honest of you.
You've virtually stated it yourself.. with
Translation : Allow me to paraphrase you through my own bias and lack of understanding.
ou can't literally 'see a photon in transit' because it would have to emit photons itself, which is not how they behave.
may be you should give me $100.00usd for getting that out of you...
You failed to grasp it because you haven't bothered to look at the experiments involving such things.
For instance, in particle accelerators we have large detectors. They are now electronic, allowing for quick computer analysis, but they used to be based on bubble and cloud chambers, and they all work in the same manner, the products from a collision blast outwards from the collision point, knocking electrons and other things out of material which makes up the detector, which in turn form charged particles (such as ions) which either set off a little electric trigger in modern detectors or form a bubble via nucleation in the older chambers. Hard photons (ie gamma rays) have so much energy then can goo through the detectors and make multiple pairs of electrons and positrons, in a straight line (as photons are not bend by magnetic fields which are setup within the detectors). as seen in
this picture. In that picture a high energy photon slams into an atom and results in a high recoil in the nucleus and the production of an electron/positron pair
and the production of another high energy photon (ie via Compton scattering) which then moves through the detector before undergoing pair production. That picture demonstrates the path a photon and it's products take through a detector. And that's been seen trillions of times in a great many detectors over a great many years. Photons are affected by the material between an emitter and a detector, so they cross the space between the emitter and detector. Put another detector between them and you detect the photon in the middle. There's experimental proof. Not that you've bothered to look.
They [ the photons ] behave in any way you want them to and has nothing at all to do with reality
You don't bother looking at experiments and then complain when it turns out experiments match theory, which is precisely what the point of science is about, coming up with models to describe nature. It's a plain simple fact that we know how electromagnetism behaves in all but the most extreme of cases. From 1 Kelvin to 1,000,000,000,000 Kelvin, in space or in matter.
the last I heard they seem to have a gravity wake trailing behind them or some other such nonsense....one minute they are massless and the next they have pseudo mass and the next they have....what ever is necessary to prop up a flawed model...
Once again you don't bother to understand the model and so complain it's not your fault you don't follow something. Photons have no invariant rest mass, ie in $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$$ you set m=0. This is true in quantum field theory and relativity (both special and general). However, that doesn't mean they don't contribute to the Stress-Energy tensor of the Einstein Field Equation, they afterall do have energy. You calculate their contribution to $$T_{\mu\nu}$$ and then solve $$G_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi T_{\mu\nu}$$ to get their effect on space-time. It's actually very non-trivial and their behaviour is not analogous to massive particles.
Next time ask yourself "Do I understand this theory" before proclaiming "It's wrong!". Otherwise you just make a fool of yourself.
bahh! and you call me a fraud and a liar! ha what a joke...
Well you did lie about me claiming there's such a thing as absolute rest. You do lie about having spent 20 years working on this stuff. You do make fraudulent claims about relativity, which you yourself admit you've never made an effort to actually read.
How precisely would you describe those behaviours?
Maybe you should read up about light clocks and how they relate to objects of mass...
So I should read up on relativity but you don't have to? How hypocritical.
but of course you will just attempt to divert attention from your own lack of understanding as usual rather than take the issues raised seriously as a teacher or scientist of any merit would.
You've basically summed up what your method is. You are caught lying so you change the subject and simply make up more lies in order to cover up previous ones.
Can you link to a post of mine where I said absolute rest exists or are you going to admit you lied?
