Because he doesn't know. There is no generally accepted scientific explanation for the "how". It is speculative, and there is no consensus on it yet.
Photon?
- Thread starter Fredrik
- Start date
It's become quite obvious, at least to me, that some are just plain fanatically interested in one thing by "strutting there stuff" like a cat-walk model.
This is because, as I have said before, they are totally and utterly rejected by mainstream and the halls of academia and have and will never achieve anything in there lifetime.
Obviously along with their "strutting"there is occasionally a non zero air of truth in what they say, [amongst the total rubbish] and that coupled with non familiar ways of putting a scenario, are purposely out to confuse, so as their continued strutting can be maintained in there then supposed correction.
While recognising these "non zero"aspects of fact in their overall diatribe, it is still painfully and sadly obvious that their overall picture is grossly distorted, as per the points I have mentioned above.
I suppose this little factual piece I have just posted may see some of those I am referring to, to put me on ignore, for the umpteenth time!
Oh the pain of it all!
This is because, as I have said before, they are totally and utterly rejected by mainstream and the halls of academia and have and will never achieve anything in there lifetime.
Obviously along with their "strutting"there is occasionally a non zero air of truth in what they say, [amongst the total rubbish] and that coupled with non familiar ways of putting a scenario, are purposely out to confuse, so as their continued strutting can be maintained in there then supposed correction.
While recognising these "non zero"aspects of fact in their overall diatribe, it is still painfully and sadly obvious that their overall picture is grossly distorted, as per the points I have mentioned above.
I suppose this little factual piece I have just posted may see some of those I am referring to, to put me on ignore, for the umpteenth time!
Oh the pain of it all!
Who are these people you are referring to? That post is vague about its intended targets.It's become quite obvious, at least to me, that some are just plain fanatically interested in one thing by "strutting there stuff" like a cat-walk model.
This is because, as I have said before, they are totally and utterly rejected by mainstream and the halls of academia and have and will never achieve anything in there lifetime.
Obviously along with their "strutting"there is occasionally a non zero air of truth in what they say, [amongst the total rubbish] and that coupled with non familiar ways of putting a scenario, are purposely out to confuse, so as their continued strutting can be maintained in there then supposed correction.
While recognising these "non zero"aspects of fact in their overall diatribe, it is still painfully and sadly obvious that their overall picture is grossly distorted, as per the points I have mentioned above.
I suppose this little factual piece I have just posted may see some of those I am referring to, to put me on ignore, for the umpteenth time!
Oh the pain of it all!
according to whom ?
is this why you left out the rest of my comment,because it will show exactly what an deceiving, manipulating individual he is.
I get your point. I'm just naturally more civil than you, not that there is anything wrong with that, lol.
It followed my post, and I have been somewhat challenging to the theory specific answers to questions that theory cannot yet answer. Sorry for not seeing the obvious.
Nothing wrong in challenging any scientific theory, but if one sees that as a necessity, one must also have proof or evidence to support their claim.
Farsight is wrong in claiming light stops at the EH of a BH. Light is never seen to be stopped from any FoR, only redshifted from any remote FoR, and proceeds as per normal with no change when near the EH of the BH.
The speed of light is constant and always remains so.
Light may appear bent, or curved but what it is doing is following geodesics in curved/bent/warped space time.
Light may also appear to be going slower, but what is happening, is that it is following geodesics in curved spacetime and has a longer path to travel.
Plus of course time is dilated.
Farsight has a record of playing with words, misinterpreting what real phyicists have said and then adding his own brand of humour.
If you agree with Farsight on those issues, then you are also wrong.
People who claim to have superior knowledge than anyone else, including the giants of the present and past, people who claim they have a TOE [and yet spend their hours on a forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry],people who take others out of context, to support their own misinterpretation, people who rape the otherwise logical axiom of thinking for one's self, by ignoring all knowledge of the past that should not be ignored.
And from last count, including Farsight, we have had four TOE claimants on this forum.
No you are still posting crap instead of reading the experiments which tell you everything you don't want to know, since they trump your pet nonsensical fairytale ether-based dreams that you continue to peddle as a basis for mollycoddling Farsight and bitching about the state of science, something that really doesn't interest you one iota. Otherwise you would study and learn rather than kiss Farsight's clueless bum and gripe and pontificate about stuff you never bothered to learn.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Aside from the properties of photons, I disagree with the underlined statement. It is true that when observed, some of the wave function of photons collapses into visible light, hence the expression, "we can change matter at subatomic level". But of course the photon does not change anything except its frequency dependent on the relative position of the observer. Thus the "mind" does not change the photon, it just translates the photon's state, IMO.
However, the bit about "another mind" being causal to natural phenomena smacks of theism. All natural abilities of living organisms are a result of natural selection for beneficial survival abilities. And this usually takes considerably longer than a few hundred years.
This, IMO, is causing all the confusion about creationism. Almost all organisms which propagate by DNA sharing, exhibit small differences, each generation. This can easily be observed in siblings which may not necessarily exhibit similarity to the parents or each other.
Thus when we speak of evolution of species, we normally speak in terms of millions of years, each surviving generation progressively adapting to their environment. Occasionally a mutation has an immediate impact, which can result in a drastic change, often fatal, but sometimes beneficial, such as the divergence of homo sapiens from ancestor hominids.
A swan is a direct descendant of dinosaurs.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaurs-living-descendants-69657706/?no-ist
The Venus Fly Trap acts in a purely electro/chemical way. When a fly lands inside a VFT, the plant does not react until two sensor hairs inside the flower are disturbed. This sets in motion a hydraulic function which forces the VFT to close, trapping the fly.
Sharks function by sensing electrical current and smell. All organisms in distress generate excess electrical current which triggers a hunting response in the shark.
Dogs, can smell body chemistry. A Bloodhound can follow a trail of single molecules shed by the prey.
However several flying insects can see "infrared" and perhaps even "ultraviolet' light.
Bats use "sonar" by rapid clicks which when reflected back create a directional path. Whales also use sonar, but at extremely low frequency, to gain long range information of large obstacles and schools of fish or blooms of krill.
None of this requires the assistance of another mind. It's ALL an evolutionary process of trial and error, where the fortunate organism gets it just right and survives to reproduce.
But I do have a question regarding the properties of photons. We know about the particle/wave duality, but my question is; what causes the photon to instantaneusly acceerate to "c" , when unimpeded? What is the causal force that demands photons to travel @ "c"?
Last edited:
That should have come with a quote or link, yes?
Don't hang that on me, lol. I have challenged him right to the end point. The point is that he won't or can't answer my last question without speculating about new science, because science does not yet answer all of the questions.
Again, no, people who haven't studied science don't know how to ask questions, and the cranks like you and Farsight aren't the least bit interested in learning the answers.
Conclusion: you and Farsight need to take all your moronic crap to the lower threads. Stop blaming science and academia for your ignorance and narcissism.
To paraphrase, you are saying take the alternative ideas to the Fringe. I'm Ok with doing that, since that is what I have been doing since the Admin set up the fringe for that purpose.
To the members: In my opinion, it is appropriate to have general public discussion of issues between fellow layman. To me it is part learning, and of the exchange of information and ideas, and not something to be characterized as deluded layman ranting. It is out-of-place and misplaced hate for members to characterize me, and those with whom I enter discussions, as ranting deluded cranks. Those words come from the same member who has falsely accused me of being a sock puppet of Farsight, of being a closet creationist, of hating science, and of ignoring him because his arguments falsify mine, all untrue, and all accompanied with extensive rants of his own. I won't respond to the future rants.
All you know is that you've moving towards it in a relative sense. There's no way to tell which is really moving - the Sun or you.
This is basic relativity, Farsight. Don't tell me you're confused.
Einstein gave most of the "how" of it, but people dismiss Einstein and come out with cargo-cult popscience nonsense like light follows geodesics in curved space time. This is wrong on so many counts. For example, curved spacetime relates to the second derivative of potential, and tidal force. The force of gravity depends on the spacetime "tilt" which is the first derivative of potential. And spacetime is a static abstract thing where the time dimension is depicted as another space dimension. There's no motion in spacetime. Light doesn't move through it. You can draw geodesics in spacetime, but light doesn't move along them. The notion that it does confuses cause and effect. You will not find Einstein saying that.
I gave it, you somehow missed it. Space and energy are the same thing, and space is like a ghostly gin-clear elastic jelly. A concentration of energy is like injecting more space into a region of space. It's like injecting jelly into a block of jelly. You create a pressure gradient in the jelly. A density gradient.
Permeability. Permittivity is like "how easy is it to bend space". Permeability is like "how strong it bounces back". Both of these characteristics determine wave speed as per the expression c = √(1/ε0μ0). They're also feature in vacuum impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0). Impedance is like resistance, but for alternating current rather than direct current. A light wave is alternating displacement current. See Taming Light at the Nanoscale:
Resistance to alternating displacement current. Impedance is. But there's no energy loss like you see in resistance to conduction current in a wire.
A light wave is a "pulse" of energy propagating through space at c, whatever c is. Again it's like you inject space into space. The photon has a gravitational field. IMHO the best way to think of this is to say the photon's gravitational field is the reaction to action h in E=hf.
Last edited:
I'm not confused. Au contraire, you're wrong. You must surely know this because you can imagine the scenario where you're moving towards the Sun from one direction, whilst I move towards it from the opposite direction. We compare notes. We know the Sun can't be moving towards both of us.
And besides, we have the CMBR rest frame to gauge our motion relative to the universe. This isn't an absolute frame in the relativity sense, but the universe is as absolute as it gets. It will do.