Is PP Zephir? He's slowly but surely becoming more obsessed with aether, including posting pictures more and more and he has the same complete ignorance of science and the inability to grasp it has to be more than words.
Pincho, i have a very liberal attitude toward any person with a freely revving imagination and a creative spirit. But there is a secret I have to tell you...
(When you look in a textbook and see a picture of a wave, and it is a wavy line, like a cartoon drawing of a snake, that is not what a wave really looks like. The textbook drawing is a graph of the varying characteristic of the wave as it passes by the observer. A graph of an AC current wave going in a wire is a representation of successive voltage magnitudes as relates to time as the wave goes by. If you had a really powerful microscope and looked into the wire, you would never see a wavy snake looking thing. You would see a blizzard of electrons moving in pretty much straight lines, heading in every direction.
When you look at a picture of a light wave, it is a graph of the varying strength of the electric and magnetic field as it moves past you. In the photon model, you would see a blizzard of light particles moving in pretty much straight lines, heading in different directions. You would not ever see a wavy snake looking thing.)
So, your hex grid picture cannot be a real picture of what you could really see if you could directly see a light wave from the side as it flew past. It might somehow be a graphic representation like the textbook pictures are, if you were to write a math wave equation based on your concept(s).
That is need to know. Prove your authority.Then tell me have you seen it with your own eyes an electron that is?
Again have you seen a photon?
If you have no idea of what an EM wave is supposed to be like in reality then what right do you have of lecturing him?
You pathetic fool I know what the description of a wave by electromagnetism is. I just find it a tad too hard to visualize. Don't gimme your quantum nonsense again. And trying to describe a field through particles is another notion I don't buy.
$100 usd on the table if you can pass the test of proving a photon travels across a void of vaccumous space from A to B.Having read through a few pages of this drivel, I find it very hard to believe anuraganimax and Quantum Quack are not the same person. Alternatively, there might just be more stupid people in the world than I like to allot for.
Pincho Paxton is a troll looking for attention (IMHO).
Really!!! please send me a picture.Every day of my life. Thank God.
Of course thats an opinion and I don't remember asking you to buy it.But, who cares whether or not you buy it?
And you were blaming my attention span....You have had your 15 minutes of fame and I have had enough of your BS. Bye.
The problem is all you're doing is just another Kent Hovind. You keep saying "There's no evidence for the photon!" but what you really mean is that there's no evidence for the photon if you only consider evidence of a very particular kind in setups which you have deliberately tailored to be unable to provide evidence. Simply creating a Catch 22 doesn't mean you're correct.$100 usd on the table if you can pass the test of proving a photon travels across a void of vaccumous space from A to B.
And when you come back later and say you can't we shall ask the question "Who is stupid?"
incorrect:The problem is all you're doing is just another Kent Hovind. You keep saying "There's no evidence for the photon!" but what you really mean is that there's no evidence for the photon if you only consider evidence of a very particular kind in setups which you have deliberately tailored to be unable to provide evidence. Simply creating a Catch 22 doesn't mean you're correct.
You keep saying you've got your own theory which can explain what current physics views as a photon as some kind of disturbance in material. I'll give $1000 if you can get it published in a reputable journal, say JHEP, in the next 6 months. I'm happy for you and I to enter into a bet with some agreed upon 3rd party holding the money for the duration while you submit your work and await a response. If you are rejected, I get your money, if you're published, you get mine. Let's see how willing you are to throw money around when the decision of what is or isn't science is taken out of your hands.
If and when I publish 1] it certainly wont be in a science journal, 2] it wouldn't be rejected because the evidence presented will be unambiguously and absolutely clear. [ what exactly the gravitational constant is [ in process]and why the photon model is incorrect...]The problem is all you're doing is just another Kent Hovind. You keep saying "There's no evidence for the photon!" but what you really mean is that there's no evidence for the photon if you only consider evidence of a very particular kind in setups which you have deliberately tailored to be unable to provide evidence. Simply creating a Catch 22 doesn't mean you're correct.
You keep saying you've got your own theory which can explain what current physics views as a photon as some kind of disturbance in material. I'll give $1000 if you can get it published in a reputable journal, say JHEP, in the next 6 months. I'm happy for you and I to enter into a bet with some agreed upon 3rd party holding the money for the duration while you submit your work and await a response. If you are rejected, I get your money, if you're published, you get mine. Let's see how willing you are to throw money around when the decision of what is or isn't science is taken out of your hands.
They can't even prove light exists other than as an effect let alone moves! The same applies for gravity
If we were talking good physics I wouldn't mind so much...but we aren't are we?So much for you putting your physics where your mouth is.
Until the claims you and most of the scientific fraternity make, are properly supported and free of ambiguity then they are merely models and ideas. A qualified speculation at best!WOO back up a sec.. they can prove light exsist.. the can slow it down actually from 186,000 miles an hour to 24 aprox.. " light" is photons and photons have mass regaurdless of what you read it has been shown and provem.. if photons didnt move how does the light get here to eart from the sun? how do lasers cut?
seems to be 100m/s not 24mph
Well you aren't, no.If we were talking good physics I wouldn't mind so much...but we aren't are we?
Simply repeating your Kent Hovind challenge doesn't cut it. If you were truely fair you'd make an unbiased third party the judge in your challenge. Instead you do what Hovind does, say "Science must explain....." followed by criteria which are flawed and make yourself the judge of your competition. You have a vested interest in saying to people "No, that's no evidence" so no matter what is presented to you you'll refuse to accept it. Just as you've refused to accept anything anyone has said to you already.You and most of the scientific community claim a causation for the light effect and can't support it properly. That I am afraid to say is simply poor physics. IMO
And I have $100 on the table and still in my possession that say so.
I forget, which of us has peer reviewed published work? Oh, me. And which of us is making claims about his work on a forum but not backing anything up? Oh, you. The problem with insulting my physics skills and attitude is that you're less successful than I am so you're not exactly doing yourself a favour.Do you want to do good physics or poor physics? The choice is yours!
You haven't even tried to look at the evidence mainstream physics has. You admit to refusing to read books on relativity yet you then make claims about it. You keep yourself ignorant on purpose and then complain when you odn't know something?!Until the claims you and most of the scientific fraternity make, are properly supported and free of ambiguity then they are merely models and ideas. A qualified speculation at best!
Wow, you actually are mirroring Hovind in that your take on what mainstream physics says is completely wrong and shows massive ignorance. Let's consider them in turn :The light effect is thought to be caused by something modelled as a photon, that defies a heap of other known physical laws.
1] A massless particle that imparts momentum upon objects of mass?
2] A massless, dimensionless particle that has dimension [ enough to travel with]?
3] Space that is being used as an aether for light [EM] but nothing else?
and so on...
Well we could examine your work to see if its 'good physics' but what a surprise, you haven't shown it. Have you not had the time to write it down? I imagine going out of your way to be as ignorant as possible is quite time consuming.the list of contradictions to good physics is a long one...
What causes the light effect? - is a very good one and one that has yet to be answered even though most of the scientists in this world "think" they have the answer. [ which stops them from looking further]
Until the claims you and most of the scientific fraternity make, are properly supported and free of ambiguity then they are merely models and ideas. A qualified speculation at best!
You and most of the scientific community claim a causation for the light effect and can't support it properly. That I am afraid to say is simply poor physics. IMO
Well you refuse to accept Compton scattering, the photoelectric effect, gravitational lensing, experiments with Bose-Einstein condensates, photon-photon scattering and pretty much the entirity of QED experiments from all particle accelerators ever.
You have not retorted any of them, you simply say "They could be explained some other way". Well you can say that about anything but there is a point at which you have to make convoluted and irrational claims otherwise. The Sun could go around the Earth but you have to come up with an enormously convoluted solar system to explain all observations.
And don't think I didn't notice that you ignored how I pointed out that your criticisms of mainstream physics were all flawed and based on ignorance. What's the matter, can't you accept that m=0 for particles carrying momentum is possible, that it isn't against 'known physical laws'? You claimed it was, you were wrong and now you're hoping to avoid admitting it.
So much for you being a crusader for truth or honesty in science, you are deliberately ignorant of it and when its pointed out you can't accept it. And still nothing with regards to your own work. Surprise surprise. Can't you justify your claims? You complain I don't but you ignore anything I say. I can't ignore what evidence you provide because you provide none.
If light has momentum but no mass and travels with a constant velocity how is the momentum conserved? What can one change when one has to apply rules of momentum conservation to a photon?
Because momentum is frequency dependent via $$E = pc = h\nu $$