"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

bottom line is it's your theory, so you support it.
So far after 281 posts there has been nothing to demonstrate the reality of our flying pig called Photon not once has there been any substantial evidence offered, and it is your science that made that so. So don't blame me for your inadequacies.
How many laws does the photon model break because of it's lack of evidencial support?

How impossible is the universes existence using this model?

Thats one hell of a law to break. You see constants. I see constants but the light effect model as it stands makes them impossible. Thats the law you guys are breaking...so work it out or find another job.

You would treat your 13 year old student with utter contempt wouldn't you AlphaNumeric?

How do we know the photon travels across space? Your answer: Because it does son and that's all you need to know about it...bahh totally useless....

Infinitely more erudite than me hey?

Well as far as I can tell you have just lost your job as a teacher and a scientist as you have broken most of the rules of both professions and your so called knowledge is utterly useless.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Absolute rest:

It means there's some 'absolute' reference frame in the universe, a globally defined constant inertial frame which is somehow more special than any other inertial frame. Which is incompatible with relativity.

Surprisingly the term absolute Rest is ambiguous defined as far as I can tell.

With regard to motion it could mean that there is absolutely no motion, relative or other wise. thus absolute rest would be in fact zero and in the space time paradigm IMO this means zero dimensional space.

As the universe by it's energistic nature must always continue to change and move through time absolute rest is the total annihilation of substance universally. IMO
Which is the real reason IMO as to why absolute rest is forbidden under SR.
No "absolute reference frame" is another issue related but not the same as absolute rest. So too is absolute motion vs relative motion. [ Newtonian]

Accordingly a photon can never be stopped unless the universe ceases to exist so I have grave doubts about what you have stated about the BEC photon being stopped as to whether or not the evidence you have seen is conclusive or not. [ I don't know what evidence you have seen or experimented with]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

bottom line is it's your theory, so you support it.

It's not 'my theory', it's the theory of mainstream physics and which has more than 80 years of evidence. I work down the corridor from people who work with individual photons for their PhD work.

So far after 281 posts there has been nothing to demonstrate the reality of our flying pig called Photon not once has there been any substantial evidence offered, and it is your science that made that so. So don't blame me for your inadequacies.

You have simply refused to look at evidence, each time moving the goal posts to avoid having to accept the evidence. You are trying to blame science for your inadequacies in understanding.

How many laws does the photon model break because of it's lack of evidencial support?

The photon matches ALL evidence. There is not a single bit of evidence which contradicts it and numerous technologies have developed from our understanding of the quantum mechanics of light.

How impossible is the universes existence using this model?

It isn't. QED, the quantum mechanics of charged particles and light, works. It's the most tested theory in history.

Thats one hell of a law to break. You see constants. I see constants but the light effect model as it stands makes them impossible. Thats the law you guys are breaking...so work it out or find another job.

Anyone whose done any QFT will know you are simply lying. It's my job to know QFT and I do. You haven't ever done any and you try to tell me it's wrong?! If I asked you a QFT question right now you'd be unable to do it. QED has several constants in it, such as the mass of the electron and it's charge. They are constants. If you claim that in QED they aren't then you are simply lying. You don't understand the work and so you lie. Simple as.

You would treat your 13 year old student with utter contempt wouldn't you AlphaNumeric?

No, because in general I'd be aware of they want to learn or not. My girlfriend's 14 year old cousin wants maths tuition which I'm happy to provide because I know she wants to learn. You, on the other hand (and irrespective of your age), don't want to learn so I'd treat you with contempt or, if you were in a class, ignore you.

How do we know the photon travels across space? Your answer: Because it does son and that's all you need to know about it...bahh totally useless....

Yet again you paraphrase me to the point of lying. Also, 13 year olds don't know much science so it's important to keep the answer within their realm of understanding. A 13 year old asking about light isn't going to want or need a reply involving quantum electrodynamics and functional integrals. Heck, you don't understand it either.

Well as far as I can tell you have just lost your job as a teacher and a scientist as you have broken most of the rules of both professions and your so called knowledge is utterly useless.

Other than the fact the knowledge I'm talking about (QED) is the knowledge which is the most tested in all of science. That quantum mechanics and relativity are responsible for most high end technologies of the last 70 years. Computers, GPS, electronics, mobile phones. Even cell towers have superconductors in them to aid in their sensitivity and speed. All due to the 'utterly useless knowledge' you refer to. If such knowledge didn't exist this conversation wouldn't occur because computers would be non-existent. Which completely skewers your argument about 'uselessness'.

As for scientific methodology, I've followed it. You're the one refusing to read work, refusing to discuss published papers, refusing to engage in a discussion of the theories in question. You refuse to read things as you 'know' they are wrong before hand! Wow, you're psychic! Or just blindly arrogant and stupid.

Surprisingly the term absolute Rest is ambiguous defined as far as I can tell.

Not if you'd ever read any book talking about such things it isn't. So, as with many other things, 'as far as you can tell' isn't far enough.

With regard to motion it could mean that there is absolutely no motion, relative or other wise. thus absolute rest would be in fact zero and in the space time paradigm IMO this means zero dimensional space.

It means there's no motion relative to the absolute rest frame. There'd be motion relative to other inertial frames. And no, it doesn't mean zero dimensional space. Don't you ever get tired of leaping to the wrong conclusions?

Accordingly a photon can never be stopped unless the universe ceases to exist so I have grave doubts about what you have stated about the BEC photon being stopped as to whether or not the evidence you have seen is conclusive or not. [ I don't know what evidence you have seen or experimented with]

No, IN A VACUUM the speed of light is constant. In other materials it's different and if you can change this property of the material somehow then you can vary the speed of light by hand. BEC are very special and slow light down to 'normal speeds'. And if you don't know the evidence GO AND LOOK FOR IT. You talk about honesty and scientific method and then do nothing to show you give a **** about it. You invent your own conclusions and ignore or refuse to find any evidence. FFS just got to Google and type in words. Is that too much to ask?

And don't think I didn't notice that you ignored ALL of my questions. Can't you explain why it's 'obvious' the photon doesn't emit other particles? Can't you explain why it's 'obvious' that $$E=mc^2$$ from light cones? You make claims, I prove them wrong. Time and again and yet you still don't ever stop to think "Maybe this assumption I'm making is flawed? Maybe it's me, not the theory".

The only flying pig is the pig that'll fly the day you bother to learn something, not simply make it up. Once again, you're dishonest, plain and simple. If I'm wrong about that answer my questions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ok I am going to drop the angst with AlphaNumeric for a moment and make this comment about the issue of light traveling across a vacuum.
The following was posted in another thread about the definition of the term Absolute Rest.

Found this little ditty at:

A brief history of Einsteins STR

To follow the empirical method is to infer to the best efficient-cause explanation. Even in classical physics, theories were highly mathematical and confirmation was most convincing when they predicted surprising, quantitatively precise measurements. But since classical physicists still believed in absolute space and time, they also expected the best scientific theories to be intuitively intelligible, in the sense that it was possible to think coherently about what was happening in spatial imagination. But intuitive intelligibility was no longer possible when the best scientific theory required giving up the belief in absolute space and time. That was undeniably a loss, but physicists felt that they had to grow up and recognize that their deepest commitment was to judging the best theory by which is the simplest and most complete prediction of measurements. Since this came from mathematical theories, abandoning the requirement that physical explanations be intuitively intelligible left them addicted to mathematics.

Of course at the time absolute rest/space/time was achieved via an aether as JamesR mentioned earlier in this thread.
So Einstein basically stated that there can be no Absolute Rest and was directly referring to the historical use of a mysterious aether of some unknown or knowable substance. [ a basic premise of an Aether being maintained by Newtonians]

AlphaNumeric and others have complained that I offer no insight into what I mean by zero space.

Pre Einsteinian physics there was held a strong intuitive belief in an aether which was proved to be invalid by the Michelson and Morley [MM] experiments involving measurements of light speed.

This aether was held at the time to be the "intuitive" mechanism that provided the universe with absolute time and space and was considered at absolute rest.
At the time there was no understanding about the possibilities of alternative mechanisms that would support absolute universal constants.
However since then we have learned a great deal about other aspects that provide insights into alternative mechanisms that can allow absolute time and space and also absolute rest thus a mechanism for understanding universal constants especially gravitational and most importantly "inertia"

By substituting the "notion" of an aether with zero dimensional space that is expanded to three dimensions due to the presence of mass we can use the universal constant of absolute zero not only in mathematics, but also in reality and "unconsciousness" to grant us a coherent and surprisingly intuitive understanding of how the universe functions as a whole.

Summary:
By substituting pre-Einsteinian belief in an aether with zero dimensional space which is expanded to 3 dimensions due to the presence of substance, we have a mechanism that underpins all constants and does not invalidate collected light effect data.
[ IMO The collapsing nature of this 3 dimensional expansion is in effect what gravity is [ dimensional collapse = gravity ]]
This leaves the MM experiments as remaining valid and it's outcome true. As zero space offers no "Drag" upon anything that exists with in it.

And what is more, Absolute Zero can be proved to "no-exist" in reality using relatively simple mathematics involving the use of infinitesimals and an Inverse Sphere.

 

[kurros]

Bored now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Bored now.

really!

You don't think that the inability to evidence a traveling photon is worth thinking about or doing something about?

I mean to say sheesh! The whole of current scientific thought is premised on something they can't evidence. Doesn't that strike you as being a little uhm....bewildering?

and you're bored!

[chuckle]

 

[Quantum Quack]

interested now?

 

[thinking]

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:​

perhaps light is a transformance of energy in a wave form , in the same way that geological movement in the ocean is transferred into water waves

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I repeat :

And don't think I didn't notice that you ignored ALL of my questions. Can't you explain why it's 'obvious' the photon doesn't emit other particles? Can't you explain why it's 'obvious' that $$E=mc^2$$ from light cones?.

Is there some reason you're refusing to back up your claims the above things are 'obvious' QQ? Could it be you, yet again, just lie?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I repeat :


Is there some reason you're refusing to back up your claims the above things are 'obvious' QQ? Could it be you, yet again, just lie?

Firstly we have a totally differet way of visualising the topic so we will never reach agreement.
Secondly the the traveling photon can't emit particels because firstly it doesn't exist and secondly those particles would also have to be massless and vectored in the same direction as the mythical photon is.[ thus one and the same thing.]
Photons assuming they exist can not be observed obliquely to their vector and only observed when they interact with objects of Mass or matter.

Which is why it is impossible to provide evidence of photons in transit with out using an object of mass to do it with. Almost identically as to why gravity can not be detected with out an object of mass to do it with. Which returns to the old What if? question.
What if it is merely the mass that is demonstrating a light effect due to inertia with out the need or existance of a traveling photon?

Working out the E=mc^2 from the light cones and telling it how it happened would just blow you away so I wont even bother. [ the logical visualisation technique would be totally foreign to you. Firstly I replaced the c with an i [ i= intensity] and then I...restored the i to a c to find compatability to conventional thought....and so on.... the important thing is that I did not use a traveling photon in the workings as I worked using the inner vibration of mass as the 'c' factor. the light cones clarified how mass at the centre must have a tremendous amount of dynamic energy with a synergistic potential of 'c'^2 or 'i'^2. Given previous understandings of the nature of mass/ gravity fitted rather well.

so pooh pooh me if you must ...have fun...


My particlular approach to this is that I started from ex- nihlo and worked out the rest from there...I didn't start from substance and reduced to quantum levels. I went about it the other way from nothing to something.....how absolute zero and substance for a universe that is self justifying, self governing duality or in your terms singularity...as an ungoverened singularity would wipe out all substance universally. again mixing terms an definitions ...sorry

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problem I have is that I am tryng to interpret what I have come to realise into a language that can be useful.

exnihlo as a concept is almost impossible to explain using any conventional scientific language that I know due mainly to seriously inhibiting preconceived notions but slowly the ability is improving.
Hence the bun fight over the lack of evidence of a traveling photon.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is only one key factor I have not allowed my self to work out or through as I don't think I nor the world are ready for it yet. It would be a breeze to finish to be honest but currently way too dangerous to do so. So I just let things take their course for a while and see what developes.
and I am not just talking to you Alphanumeric as there are other people reading this thread that would like to know.

so shall we return to the issue at hand that being our flying pig called photon?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Secondly the the traveling photon can't emit particels because firstly it doesn't exist and secondly those particles would also have to be massless and vectored in the same direction as the mythical photon is.[ thus one and the same thing.]

Your first point is circular reasoning, "The photon can't emit particles because it doesn't exist because it can't emit particles". Your second point is wrong. Gluons are massless particles which can emit other gluons. The difference between gluons and photons is that gluons, which are the carriers of the strong force, are charged under the strong force. Photons, which carry the EM force, are not charged under electromagnetism. More technically, the photons are a U(1) gauge field, the gluon is an SU(3) one, the former is abelian (and so non-self interacting) while the latter is not. Gluons don't emit parallel gluons, they only need to obey momentum conservation, which is contrary to what you said.

However, the photon is coupled to charged particles, so a photon can turn into say an electron/positron pair, which then can in turn emit photons, before recombining into a photon. This is 'loop suppressed' (ie it's less likely as it's more complex) but it's not impossible. A photon would appear to emit another photon, with its energy and momentum changing accordingly, but it is too rare to see at the energies we currently do experiments at.

Photons assuming they exist can not be observed obliquely to their vector and only observed when they interact with objects of Mass or matter.

This logic is equivalent to saying "Any particle in science doesn't exist unless it emits photons", because you deny any particle we cannot directly 'see' moving, which is done by viewing photons emitted from the particle. This is a very naive and assumptive view, as it basically says "The way in which our eyes work is special and the entire universe must conform to it!".

Which is why it is impossible to provide evidence of photons in transit with out using an object of mass to do it with. Almost identically as to why gravity can not be detected with out an object of mass to do it with. Which returns to the old What if? question.

This is like saying "It's impossible to detect a particle without a detector, so it doesn't exist". You are classifying your eyes as 'special', even though you see secondary evidence of a particle if you observe it by particles it emits.

What if it is merely the mass that is demonstrating a light effect due to inertia with out the need or existance of a traveling photon?

Except such a viewpoint completely fails to explain things like why mediums which a photon supposedly travels through actually affects the photon. Why do photons which travel from distant galaxies get affected by objects they pass close to, if they aren't actually travelling?

Working out the E=mc^2 from the light cones and telling it how it happened would just blow you away so I wont even bother.

What a damn pathetic cop out, and you know it. Blow me away? I just proved you wrong by explaining how it's NOT true on the light cone and you think you'll blow me away by just showing how you can't do basic science? You're all talk with nothing to say.

[ the logical visualisation technique would be totally foreign to you. Firstly I replaced the c with an i [ i= intensity] and then I...restored the i to a c to find compatability to conventional thought....and so on.... the important thing is that I did not use a traveling photon in the workings as I worked using the inner vibration of mass as the 'c' factor. the light cones clarified how mass at the centre must have a tremendous amount of dynamic energy with a synergistic potential of 'c'^2 or 'i'^2. Given previous understandings of the nature of mass/ gravity fitted rather well.

Translation : "If I gibber for long enough maybe he'll go away".

My particlular approach to this is that I started from ex- nihlo and worked out the rest from there...I didn't start from substance and reduced to quantum levels. I went about it the other way from nothing to something.....how absolute zero and substance for a universe that is self justifying, self governing duality or in your terms singularity...as an ungoverened singularity would wipe out all substance universally. again mixing terms an definitions ...sorry

Translation : "If I gibber for long enough maybe he'll go away".

Give me your basis postulates and derive $$E=mc^2$$. If you can't then you lied.

It would be a breeze to finish to be honest but currently way too dangerous to do so.

Oh look, the "I've got all the answers" line from the crank who can't answer straight forward questions. Why is it 'dangerous'? The thought police? I bet $500 that if you typed up your work and submitted it to a reputable journal you'd be rejected. Hell, I'll even type set it correctly for you to make sure you can't give "It wasn't formatted properly!" as an excuse.

so shall we return to the issue at hand that being our flying pig called photon?

Why bother? You've just demonstrated you won't back up claims you make, you're willing to lie, you don't bother to read anything by mainstream physics and you refuse to acknowledge anything put in front of you. You are not interested in scientific honesty, you just want to try to convince others (but mostly yourself) you haven't wasted the last 20 years on learning nothing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

AlphaNumeric, have you ever studied the mathematics of the Mayan Calander?
Have you ever attempted to translate the mathematics into human format to facilitate human understanding?

Have you ever done 4 dimensional mathematics/calculus? Look up "Cubism" to give you an idea...

Have you ever looked at a circle drawn on a page of paper with a dot in the centre and wondered what that formula represents? [hey it aint just a circle with a dot in it I can assure you]
No, you are stuck in the dark ages using a mechanistic viewpoint on a universe that operates on a multi dimensional "plane" level.
Ever wondered how to vapourise an entire planet in less than 5 seconds?
Ever wonderd how to open worm holes or better still star gates?
Impossible under the current human conception of physics.
In particular the notion that we have a Photon travelling from A to B across a void. bah!
You think you have trouble explaining your math and science to me. Well the same problem exists for me as well...

too dangerous...you bet ya. With an attitude like yours as an example of some on this planet you can't blame me.

 

[kurros]

"4 dimensional mathematics/calculus?"

-General relativity is based on such math. It is called differential geometry, and is not restricted to 4-dimensions. It can in fact be applied to infinite dimensional spaces. However just because the math exists to describe something doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality (at least at the level of physical theory).
-Your link has nothing to do with mathematics.
-I'm afraid physics is vastly more powerful and beautiful than you realise, it saddens me that you seem to be incapable of understanding it. I suggest you re-examine your fundamental conceptions of physics (and logic it would seem) if you ever want to be able to take the vital step from fantasy-land into the real world.

 

[Quantum Quack]

-Your link has nothing to do with mathematics.

but of course it doesn't .....not current mathematics anyway...


Decribe in mathematics the art form cubism and you will start to get what I am talking about.

However I note your point and appreciate your comment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"4 dimensional mathematics/calculus?"

-General relativity is based on such math. It is called differential geometry, and is not restricted to 4-dimensions. It can in fact be applied to infinite dimensional spaces. However just because the math exists to describe something doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality (at least at the level of physical theory).
-Your link has nothing to do with mathematics.
-I'm afraid physics is vastly more powerful and beautiful than you realise, it saddens me that you seem to be incapable of understanding it. I suggest you re-examine your fundamental conceptions of physics (and logic it would seem) if you ever want to be able to take the vital step from fantasy-land into the real world.

Unfortuneately language has struck again...

What do I mean by 4 dimensional mathematics?

Where every notation branches off in all dimensions simultaneously. Hard to describe but a bit like writing 10 strings of formulations simultaneously from every notation with in those strings. the natural mathematics of the human genome is about as close as I can get to describing it... handles infinte variables with few constant values if that makes any sense what so ever.

sheszsh! I give up....don't worry about it....

 

[kurros]

I perhaps see what you are getting at. Do you perhaps mean some kind of logical system in which the actual statements themselves occupy a 4D environment? Perhaps a crude 2D analogy may be a magic square, if one inserted some representation of the various summation operations required and some overall equality comparison. I can see the appeal of such an idea in principle, but I am fairly confident that anything that could be done in this complex environment could be reduced back to regular mathematics, which is built from basic principles of logic and transcends the written form we choose to represent it in. Perhaps some things might have nice symmetry properties or something in a more complex representation, but they'd be pretty impossible to work with logically so we're really better off coming up with ways to represent these kinds of things in more standard notation.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Have you ever done 4 dimensional mathematics/calculus? Look up "Cubism" to give you an idea...

I have published work on 6 dimensional spaces. Have you ever done any calculus? I doubt it. Last night I spent 4 or 5 hours wondering how to translate a description of 4 and 2 dimensional spaces into a pair of 3 dimensional spaces.

Have you ever looked at a circle drawn on a page of paper with a dot in the centre and wondered what that formula represents? [hey it aint just a circle with a dot in it I can assure you]

It's not a formula, it's a picture, symbol or pictograph. And this is a pointless question, as it could mean almost anything. A circle with a dot in the middle is a subscript notation for 'solar', so M such a subscript circle with a dot in the middle is the mass of the Sun. Alternatively it's a simple diagram for Hydrogen and infact that premise forms the entire plot for an episode of Star Trek - The Next Generation. You ask me if I've put any effort into wondering about such things, while you readily admit to having put in no effort to learning anything about science, you simply make it up as you go along.

No, you are stuck in the dark ages using a mechanistic viewpoint on a universe that operates on a multi dimensional "plane" level.

Yeah, I'm stuck doing stupid things like 'learning' and 'reading'. I'm sure future generations will look back and laugh at how foolish people were for reading books!

Ever wondered how to vapourise an entire planet in less than 5 seconds?
Ever wonderd how to open worm holes or better still star gates?

Anyone whose watched sci-fi has thought about those things. Watching the most recent Star Trek film I'm sure plenty of people wondered "Wow, how do you make that black hole/worm hole?". Anyone whose watched Donnie Darko will wonder about time travel and worm holes. You need zero science knowledge to wonder about such things. Being able to actually describe them is an entirely different thing, which brings me on to your next comment :

Impossible under the current human conception of physics.

Vapourising an entire planet in 5 seconds can be done by a supernova. Time travel can be done using particular exotic matter and lots of energy. Worm holes can be made using electromagnets and lots of energy. There's actually considerable work done in the realm of general relativity for how you might make closed time-like curves or wormholes. Spinning black holes have wormhole like throats, even the stationary Schwarzchild black hole solution has wormhole-like regions. I can provide you with lecture notes taught to students which cover such things, it's not even a "This is too hard or crazy to teach" topic.

In particular the notion that we have a Photon travelling from A to B across a void. bah!
You think you have trouble explaining your math and science to me. Well the same problem exists for me as well...

I haven't tried to explain any maths to you, because I firmly believe you would not understand it. You don't understand the maths of special relativity, even the stuff taught to 1st years, so more complicated stuff like QED or GR is completely out of your reach. And I won't even bother explaining my work. And since mathematics is the language of physics, you fail to understand much physics.

You haven't tried to explain 'your maths' to me, you have no maths.

too dangerous...you bet ya. With an attitude like yours as an example of some on this planet you can't blame me.

You think you've got results so great they would be 'dangerous'? Wow, you're even more delusional than I thought.

 

[Steve100]

I think he's smoked a lot more of whatever it is he smokes today.