See any photons ...nope but I sure as hell see some GOLD!
The Photon Challenge
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
2 million dollars and 2 nobel prizes.
one for physics and the other for politics.
Holy research failure batman!
So eliminate the possibility that the wall is not exhibiting the effect with out travelling photons needed? If you can.... [ seriously ]
With out assuming the photons exist in the first place.
"you can not presume the photon as evidenced until it is evidenced."
I forget what the latin phrase is for this type of proof.
There may be other reasons for the strange patterns displayed other than traveling photons causing interferrance. [ we only consider it as interferance because we assume a photon exists as it may not be interferrance at all.]
Saying that it is, because the model fits is not evidence of a independant photon.
If we had evidence of an IOM [independant of mass] photon then we could categorically state with almost 100% certainty, that the photon is the causation of the patterns shown on the wall. As it stands we have nothing but an unevidenced causation model. Therefore there can be no certainty or real confidence in the model other than it appears to work well. IMO. Yet could be a mere imaginary extrapolation of an effect that is occuring only upon the mass involved. Hence the contraversial notion of "a flying pig called Photon" ~ imaginary causation that appears to suffice.
Last edited:
Secondary outcomes:
- To provide evidence that supports the invariance of lightspeed that demonstrates that a photon particle is independant of it's "Mass" source and "mass" destination.
- To qualify more precisely the limitations of existing evidence regarding the existance of a photon that is independant of mass as required for light speed invariance to be actual.
Last edited:
You have repeatedly demonstrate you don't know what physics says because you don't read it and even if you did you wouldn't understand it. You're trying to convince yourself its not your fault you don't understand something.
For example, in another thread you asked how the photon is consistent with $$E=mc^{2}$$. Anyone whose done any relativity or quantum mechanics knows $$E=mc^{2}$$ doesn't apply to the photon. You don't know that and yet you're trying to convince us you have a good grasp of what physics says about the photon?
Every bit of the models of the photon has been tested by experiment. The fact you've concocted such convoluted and contrived 'limits' to what experimental results you'll accept doesn't mean there's no evidence for the models of the photon used in the mainstream.
If you lack the ability to honestly evaluate scientific experiments done by research groups which someone might present as evidence against your challenge then you have absolutely no justifcation to be a judge on your challenge. A judge must be able to evaluate evidence put in front of him. You've effectively just said you don't think you need such an ability, thus invalidating your challenge as dishonest.
No, you want evidence to support what you interpret the smattering of pop science you've read on photons to be implying. That is not what actual science is saying. Notice how all the people who have done electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity and quantum field theory on these forums disagree with you, as if we think you're not understanding the science properly. But rather than consider the possibility you might not be understanding something you've never read properly you think we're all just wrong.
I've had plenty of people who are honestly interested in science thank me for helping them or explaining things to them. If someone demonstrates they honestly want to learn and are honest then I've got all the time in the world for them. You and the people you often are in agreement with aren't such people. I'm unpleasant to you not because I'm unpleasant to everyone but because you don't deserve anything more.
You're still trying to intimidate me by implying someone, even if its not you, is an 'enemy' of me. I certainly have been unpleasant to plenty of nuts but if they think I'm an 'enemy' and have some kind of vendetta then they are too thin skinned. If someone is so upset from my posts they feel the need to do anything other than post a reply then they need to really take a look at themselves.
If you're putting yourself forth as the judge of anything submitted to your challenge then you're putting forth that you have sufficient knowledge, ability, understanding and honesty to evaluate all submissions properly and without bias. I'd say that is[/] putting your credibility at stake because if you have none then you completely invalidate your challenge. Which you do, as you have no scientific credibility. If you can't find such a person to be a judge instead of you you'll get nowhere. And that's ignoring the invalidity of your criteria.
Wonderfully ironic! The reason you see things is photons go from the object to your eye. You only see photons!
Your criteria are vague and misrepresent what the mainstream says. If you claim the mainstream puts forth a particular claim then you should provide citations to well cited papers or books which clearly state said 'claim'. Until then you haven't made a challenge, you've just made it more widely known you don't understand what the mainstream says. Provide citations or your challenge is worthless.
nah I only see the surface of the gold bars vibrating at light speed.
prove me wrong?
in a way that evidences a photon that is independant of your eyes or the gold or the source....etc
well you see Alphanumeric you can't and that's the point because you should be able to.
Why you can't.... is evidenced right through out your string of vitriolic adjectives.
Last edited:
simple really...... just provide the evidence as requested and the problem goes away and someone gets the award, other wise it stays until it does.
The key inspiration behind the campaign is actually your deliberate desire to avoid dealing with the issues raised.
After so much time you have yet to actually consider the issue in a way that would lead to resolution and instead devote yourself to poster credibility destruction techniques. So maybe one day you will learn what you need to learn from all this.
You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem... its your choice.
After so much time you have yet to actually consider the issue in a way that would lead to resolution and instead devote yourself to poster credibility destruction techniques. So maybe one day you will learn what you need to learn from all this.
You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem... its your choice.
is that before or after they decide to take action to relieve the pain you have inflicted?
A bit like shooting a kid in the head with a gun and then saying the "kids skull was not strong enough" thus absolving your self of any responsibility as is typical of an online sociopath.... you are one nasty pastey hey?
btw.... I have learned how to stop coughing up blood and splattering my monitor while I talk to you ....thank you very much.
As you have already gathered I already know you can not supply the evidence required. So really the campaign is not so much about the evidence but more about the people who can not deal with the reality of such.
The campaign will attract persons such as youself and that is it's real agenda Other than that it will be a rather interesting social experiment in human behaviour and maybe make some money along the way simply because you refuse to entertain seriously looking at the complaint and prefer to quote selectively from text books instead.
Last edited:
detail off the front page so far:
I think the questions asked are quite reasonable don't you think?
the text has yet to be firmed up so please excuse any spelling and gramma issues.
I think the questions asked are quite reasonable don't you think?
the text has yet to be firmed up so please excuse any spelling and gramma issues.
Last edited:
Have less than 20 posts so can't quote that last screenshot of what you just posted but...
"Has a the light"? What?
The word is independently, not independantly.
The word is its, not it's.
Not to nitpick but the fact that these glaring errors are on your front page doesn't bode well for taking any of this seriously.
Spelling and grammar checking should be considered mandatory.
"Has a the light"? What?
The word is independently, not independantly.
The word is its, not it's.
Not to nitpick but the fact that these glaring errors are on your front page doesn't bode well for taking any of this seriously.
Spelling and grammar checking should be considered mandatory.
thanks.
I was going to edit my last post to indicate that the wording is only draft form as the site is far from ready to be published. 30 days away at least. [ legal and marketing side, SEO search engine optimisation etc will take time] plus textual/image content articles and back ground imagery.
However sciforums server played up and I couldn't edit the post.
of course you are absolutely right in what you are saying.
Thanks for your constructive comments all the same.
well of course it wouldn't would it. Afterall if it did E=mc^2 would be invalid.
I won't answer that until after unambiguous evidence is presented for Zero Point Theory. [ www.zeropointtheory.com ~unpublished the current site is a dud with some sophisticated trackers so no point hacking it... eh what!]
Then you guys will be able to answer it for yourself.
It's actually not that hard to get your head around once the notion of a travelling photon is removed as an obstacle to understanding zero dimensions with infinite volume. It is how the theory explains consciousness in zero point entanglement terms that may be more interesting than fibre optics...
Sorry Stryder, but too much flaming and not enough thinking goes on.
It is invalid, except for the special case of zero momentum. E=mc^2 tells us something about the equivalence of rest mass and energy.
A photon has no rest mass, and can not have zero momentum, so E=mc^2 doesn't apply.
"theoretically" a photon has no rest mass..... why was it deemed to have no rest mass?
Because it had to avoid the problem of mass travelling at 'c' thus infinite momentum if I am not mistaken.
However the first premise being the existance of a photon is being questioned and of course if one wishes to "invent" a photon then it must not have rest mass to avoid compromising an equation that actually can be shown to be valid by actual results [Hirohshima was agood example]. [ assuming only a property or value of 'c' is utilised in the equation and not a photon or EM persee.] would be my contra.
Either way a point particle cannot have mass regardless, as it is zero dimensional. [ again if I am not mistaken.]
I am of course far from qualified to make any real technical contribution to the issue as you know.
Last edited:
The point of my trite comment was that once it was accepted in the early 1900's that the photon had to exist to support invariance using 4 dimensional space as it's back drop all science has been doing is making the photon fit as required, without questioing the first premise, that being does it, the photon exist, independent of mass.
The amount of "scientific accommodation" that has been going on to support a causation of the light effect that can't be evidenced other than by that effect is truly amazing IMO.
So of course the ability to describe a photon that doesn't exist, concisely with appropriate supporting evidence is impossible if one looks at all the implications.
The amount of "scientific accommodation" that has been going on to support a causation of the light effect that can't be evidenced other than by that effect is truly amazing IMO.
So of course the ability to describe a photon that doesn't exist, concisely with appropriate supporting evidence is impossible if one looks at all the implications.