"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

QQ, you keep avoiding answering my question about what exactly you've spent the last 2 decades doing. You admit you haven't read relativity, because you consider it a waste of time, but you also admit this stuff "actually takes work and a great deal of thought and experience", which you therefore don't have. And your reply completely ignored all the things I corrected you on.

Type in 'evidence for the photon' to Google and you get a lot of links. You simply deny they exist, you don't refute them. That isn't very honest of you. But then it's clear you aren't very honest.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
QQ, you keep avoiding answering my question about what exactly you've spent the last 2 decades doing. You admit you haven't read relativity, because you consider it a waste of time, but you also admit this stuff "actually takes work and a great deal of thought and experience", which you therefore don't have. And your reply completely ignored all the things I corrected you on.

Type in 'evidence for the photon' to Google and you get a lot of links. You simply deny they exist, you don't refute them. That isn't very honest of you. But then it's clear you aren't very honest.
Click to expand...

Answering your slander is not the topic of this thread Alphanumeric. Responding to your strategy of provocation to avoid the issue is not going to work, You can call me any thing you like, dishonest a fraud etc but the truth stands as it does regardless and your opinion of me is not worth a cracker due to your disengenious approach to the questions raised.
You have yet to show evidence of any sort of a photon in transit from A to B. You have stated that because you are not aware of any other way for energy to transfer across a vacuum that a photon must exist. Well...to me and others reading this thread all that shows is an incredible lack of creative intelligence and an incredible scientific arrogance. R. Feyman would be rolling in his grave... Just because you are incapable of fathoming a possible alternative you consider that to be proof or evidence of the model you are comfortable with.

Nonsense. Are you seriously claiming that a detector, like your eyes, is moving at the speed of light? Go outside at night with a torch. Point it at a distant object and turn it on. Does the light reach the object before your eyes physically traverse that distance? Very much so. So your eyes don't move at light speed. So your comment is BS.

It's comments like that which make me question your grip on reality. When was the last time you moved at 186,000 miles per second?
Click to expand...

You see you have failed to porperly argue a case for absolute rest which you know can not possibly be the case....
So you have a problem. If mass is stationary then it is at absolute rest. if is not at absolute rest then at what velocity is it traveling with in itself. [ atomically for want of a better word]

So is mass just sort of in suspended animation or what?

According to SRT absolute rest is a no-no... so what speed is it pray tell? What speed are your eyes atomically traveling at?
You see you can't win this arguement and have resorted to defamation and slander. Sorry bud , it wont work....
mass and matter travel at exactly the same rate as our mythical photon so light can not be considered as relative in velocity....

simple really.

You're denying that if something starts at A and ends at B then it's traversed the distance in between. Once again, you aren't refuting evidence, you're just denying it's there.

Light gets from the Sun to the Earth. When the Moon is in the way, aka an eclipse, light doesn't reach us. It's almost as if light is moving from the Sun to the Earth and has it's path blocked. Is that too hard for you to grasp?
Click to expand...
prove that it has actualy transversed the distance then ...should be easy for someone so qualified as you...

And to say "...well it got here therefore it must have", shows again how little you respect the scientific process and how immature you are as a scientist.

Show a photon in transit across vacuum space. Support the position you hold with evidence as it is you and your buddies out there that are proposing that a photon does, with out evidence to support it.

You simply can't admit that a novice or amateur has cracked your scientific fraud can you?

Tell you what....

If any one can show unambiguous evidence of a travelling photon that clearly demonstrates it as traveling across vaccum of space and elliminates the possibility that the light effects observed are not merely inertial resonance events I'll pay them $50.00 usd and give a further $50.00 usd to a recognised charity of their choice...interested any one...
 
Last edited:
I'll repeat the challenge:
If any one can show unambiguous evidence of a travelling photon that clearly demonstrates it as traveling across vaccum of space and elliminates the possibility that the light effects observed are not merely inertial resonance events I'll pay them $50.00 usd and give a further $50.00 usd to a recognised charity of their choice...interested any one...
and if you can't find that evidence then maybe you would care to add to the prize for who ever can provide that evidence.
 
Actually come to think of it , I reckon an internet challenge similar to the Rand Challenge would be a great idea.......prove your photon and pick up the cash sort of thing...ha...could be fun...might make it into mainstream media....hmmmmmm....do what Rand is doing and make a fortune out of scientific fraud but arse about.....ha....As I am a web designer anyways it would be so easy to do...[chuckle]
If any one is interested in putting into the idea..pm me...
 
so far regarding this question about light traveling some of the refutation has been:

1]
That for light to get here from the source it simply must travel here. How could get here other wise.

Response: The presumption that distance is real for a photon has yet to be evidenced. In fact the current definitions given for what a photon is actually support the notion of zero dimensionality for the photon.
The refutation is also highly unscientific and close minded. Distance for a photon has yet to be evidenced just as the photon itself has yet to be evidenced.
2]
We have enormous empirical data that clearly demonstrates the existence of a photon.
response:
All you have is evidence of an effect that is observed. A model is then constructed to accommodate that effect and is limited by the scientific imagination at the time. Similar to how Gravity is treated, we are observing effects and can only model using our imaginations what the causation of these effects are.
The traveling photon is one such model and as such has yet to be evidenced or supported except by those effects that DO NOT include transitional effects. In other words a photon has never been observed to be in transit and only assumes that it is.
2]
The light effect model works so it must be right.

The current light effect model works to a degree that happens to be currently convenient. However the model actually eliminates the possibility of universal constants such as inertia and gravity thus it is obviously very flawed however useful model.
Also a very narrow POV to assume just because it seems to work that it is correct especially given that it makes other aspects of the universal reality impossible which is contrary to observation.
Albert Einstein once was quoted as saying something to the effect of "that a theory only needs one serous refutation and it fails"
Well the fact that gravity is an exactly uniform constant through out the universe is that refutation. The current light effect model prevents any mechanism that supports the universal constant of Gravity from ever being revealed to those who believe in the current light effect model. The fact that the universe can spacially expand [ inflate ] uniformally and universally is also evidence that refutes the validity of the current light effect model.
3]
That the existence of shadows indicates that the photon's path must be blocked.
The shadow could also be caused by blocking "inertial resonance effects" over zero distance.
4]
That the Bose/Einstein Condensate experimental result prove light to slow at extremely low temperatures of the condensate.
Response: a Presumption that a photon travels is not evidence that it does indeed travel. The slow down caused by intense cooling of atomic rates of change can be evidenced and in fact are being evidenced but are being incorrectly attributed to an unobservable and unevidenceable traveling photon instead.
5]
The double slit experiment clearly shows both particle and wave impacts.
The reason why the double slit experiment creates the paradoxical duality of particle or wave is simply evidence that the photon is not as we think it to be. Obviously the light effect model is incapable of even dealing with this simple experiment.
6]
Gravitational lensing effects caused by light passing a significant gravitational object
Spacial distortion caused by significant gravitational effects can cause distortions to phenomena that rely on spacial dynamics. The possibility of an "inertial resonance" model suggested is one such proposed model that would be seriously effected by gravitational effects. [ not unlike the current photon model]
7]
We can clearly say that we have eliminated all other options when it comes to measuring light and it's speed.
Response: As light or energy is fundamental to existence you can not differentiate between light and an object of mass/matter used to detect it with. Therefore you can not rule out that the light effect is a Mass or Matter event only, caused by means yet to be explored or understood.
It is impossible to differentiate between a photon and that which reflects, absorbs or emits it. Therefore it is impossible to determine that the photon exists in it's own right independent of matter or mass.
And as no photon has ever been evidenced in transit between two objects of matter or mass it's existence is dubious to say the least. To presume it does is mere speculation unsupported by scientific process.
The bottom line is:
By granting the existence of a traveling photon universal constants are unable to exit. By removing the need for a traveling photon in the modeling the universal constants can exist as they obviously do.

traveling photon = no constants
mass/ matter inertial event = yes constants.



and more yet to come no doubt.....
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Answering your slander is not the topic of this thread Alphanumeric. Responding to your strategy of provocation to avoid the issue is not going to work, You can call me any thing you like, dishonest a fraud etc but the truth stands as it does regardless and your opinion of me is not worth a cracker due to your disengenious approach to the questions raised.
Click to expand...
You're the one who said he's been doing this stuff for 2 decades and it needs a lot of experience but admits to not having read anything on relativity. That sounds pretty disingenuous to me.

Quantum Quack said:
According to SRT absolute rest is a no-no... so what speed is it pray tell? What speed are your eyes atomically traveling at?
You see you can't win this arguement and have resorted to defamation and slander. Sorry bud , it wont work....
mass and matter travel at exactly the same rate as our mythical photon so light can not be considered as relative in velocity....
Click to expand...
You define velocity by relative motion. My eyes aren't moving relative to the desk infront of me. The light from the bulb of my table lamp is moving relative to my eyes, with the speed being 186,000 miles per second.

When you're driving your car and its night can you see the headlights of the car behind you? Yes? Then the light from the headlights has caught up your car. So the light must be moving relative to you. See, another simple example of how light moves.

Quantum Quack said:
prove that it has actualy transversed the distance then ...should be easy for someone so qualified as you...

And to say "...well it got here therefore it must have", shows again how little you respect the scientific process and how immature you are as a scientist.
Click to expand...
You call me immature and claim I've got little respect for the scientific method when you refuse to look at sources of information because you have already made up your mind it's all wrong. That's like the Church saying to Galileo "You must be wrong because we know you're wrong". You have no integrity at all.

And I've already told you that Google is awash with 'experimental evidence for the photon', you just take the same attitude to that as you take to relativity, you refuse to read it because you've already made your mind up. How open minded of you.

Quantum Quack said:
Show a photon in transit across vacuum space. Support the position you hold with evidence as it is you and your buddies out there that are proposing that a photon does, with out evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
You have a misunderstanding of how particle physics works. We see things because photons come off them. You can't literally 'see a photon in transit' because it would have to emit photons itself, which is not how they behave. However, photons travelling through space have their paths deflected by objects near their paths, ie curved paths due to gravity, they have their frequencies altered by space-time expansion or by interactions with material in space. We can see what properties space between us and a distant star has by the effect that space has on the photons which traverse the distance.

The photon doesn't magically jump from the star to us, ignoring all that's inbetween, it's altered by the stuff in the space it passes through. This is the basis of how much experimental cosmology is done. If you want evidence, I suggest getting ahold of a university level cosmology textbook.

Quantum Quack said:
You simply can't admit that a novice or amateur has cracked your scientific fraud can you?
Click to expand...
I have zero fear you have done anything like that. Your ignorance and dishonesty ooze from your posts and you display something most cranks have, the inability to accept you're small and insignificant and that there's people in the world who can grasp things you cannot. Boo hoo, you haven't learnt to accept that. So rather than saying "Oh well" and getting on with your life you devote enormous efforts to convincing yourself you don't need to learn that complicated subject because it's 'obviously' wrong. That way you can avoid accepting some things are beyond you.

If you're right, why aren't you publishing your 'work' in journals? Why post in a pseudoscience section of a forum? Can't you find a kindred voice in the academic community? Of course not.

Quantum Quack said:
I'll repeat the challenge:
If any one can show unambiguous evidence of a travelling photon that clearly demonstrates it as traveling across vaccum of space and elliminates the possibility that the light effects observed are not merely inertial resonance events I'll pay them $50.00 usd and give a further $50.00 usd to a recognised charity of their choice...interested any one...
and if you can't find that evidence then maybe you would care to add to the prize for who ever can provide that evidence.
Click to expand...
This is akin to the challenge Kent Hovind gives about evolution in that it's unwinnable. You will simply not call any evidence provided 'unambigious', thus allowing you to claim your challenge has never been beaten. 'Inertial resonance events' isn't even a meaningful statement. You have no knowledge of any actual quantitative science so anyone linking to say a paper on ArXiv will be refused, as you won't understand them. That leaves us with just qualitative evidence, which isn't precise enough for it to be called 'umambigious' and so its impossible to win, all due to your ignorance.

Quantum Quack said:
so far regarding this question about light traveling some of the refutation has been:
Click to expand...
Refutation? You simply make up the 'deus ex machina' of 'Inertial resonance events' to justify ignoring them. You don't list any actual published papers or detailed experiments involving photons and refute them. Why not? Why don't you go through a paper on Compton scattering, which cannot be explained by purely wave mechanics, and refute that? Why don't you go through a paper on quantum electrodynamics which involves photon interactions and refute that? What's the matter, can't you do QED?

Look on ArXiv for papers with 'photon' in the title, most of them will relate to processes in LEP or the LHC. Refute those. Because at the moment you're not refuting actual science or providing any of your own, you're just giving very transparent attempts to ignore phenomena. It's like a religious person saying "God did it", it's an answer but not really an answer.
 
interesting. my repsonse is to keep it simple, light does not move. it takes time to rech its limit.

when it reaches its limit, does it stop? no, because it was not moving\traveling.
 
John99 said:
interesting. my response is to keep it simple, light does not move. it takes time to rech its limit.

when it reaches its limit, does it stop? no, because it was not moving\traveling.
Click to expand...
Ahh that reminds me of an old discussion some years ago about how a photon can accelerate from a so called object at absolute rest according to Alphanumeric and achieve 'c'.

So even in this instance light speed is variant from the moment it leaves an object to the moment it achieves 'c'.

So the only answer to the invariance question is that the object emitting the photon is also traveling at 'c' other wise the photon is variant and not invariant...

Alpha, would you care to add ...your solution to the acceleration issue of a photon from a source object of mass?


My solution:

if the object of mass, the source, is traveling at 'c' [ vibrating at 'c' ] then the photon is always at 'c'. and as every thing we observe must be a source object then everything of mass is travelling at 'c' thus the photon's speed is not relative to any obejct of mass but exactly the same.

What else would set up the "frequencies", amplitude and wave length we observe of EMR any ways? Other than a source that is vibrating at 'c'
 
Last edited:
This is akin to the challenge Kent Hovind gives about evolution in that it's unwinnable. You will simply not call any evidence provided 'unambigious', thus allowing you to claim your challenge has never been beaten. 'Inertial resonance events' isn't even a meaningful statement. You have no knowledge of any actual quantitative science so anyone linking to say a paper on ArXiv will be refused, as you won't understand them. That leaves us with just qualitative evidence, which isn't precise enough for it to be called 'umambigious' and so its impossible to win, all due to your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Well I guess that means that the photon model has a gaping hole in it then doesn't it?
Of course you can't show the world a photon in transit but you have the gaul to state that it is and does transit empty space and vacuum with out any evidence to say it does. [and call it good science to boot]
$100 usd is waiting for any one who can show a photon in transit from one object to another that excudes the possibility that it is only the "massive" object that is used to detect it with that is generating the effect.
I would hazzard a bet that if you use the appropriate equations "with out our mythical spacial photon" you will find that the quanities of the universe's mass and matter stack up with out any need for "dark energy or dark mass"
 
Last edited:
Why can't the photon just appear traveLling at c QQ?
 
One way to help show what is meant by the photon's velocity being exactly the same as an object of mass is to install a light clock on that object of mass and measure the speed of the light clocks EM compared to the speed of our mythical traveling photon. Then imagine that the mass itself is a veritable light clock in itself and you will see what I mean about the current models photon/wave velocity not being relative to objects of mass.
 
Steve100 said:
I'll just let you have a guess.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ok I'll rephrase it for you.
question:
Why can't we have a traveling photon from object to object across vacant space.

Answer :
1] Because it renders universal constants such as gravity as impossible to be constant.
2] That if universal inflation is occurring then it must do so uniformally other wise the universe would be in utter chaos gravitationally, and time and visual perception distortions would be obvious.
3] That we would need to come up with imaginary mass and energy to fill a gaping hole in our calculations about the universes total mass.
4] It means also that inertia becomes variant and disallows any mechanism for understanding how the constants acheive constancy.
5] That SRT double handles the same phenonema [ energy ] leading to ridiculous conclusions such as length contraction only being perpendicular to vector and other ridiculous outcomes that Lorentz Transforms generate such as relative simultaneity and non-simultaneity.

and more no doubt.....
 
NOpe. I think you guessed wrong on purpose.
 
Because you don't like answering peoples questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top