This is all very fun but is it science?
What’s the difference between the past and the future? Not a great deal, if you take a purely relativistic view of the universe, say George Ellis from the University of Cape Town in South Africa and Tony Rothman from Princeton University in New Jersey.
The standard spacetime diagrams used in relativity accord no special status to the past, the present or the future. That’s because they assume that everything evolves from time-reversible local physics.
In fact, it is possible represent such a universe using a kind of spacetime diagram in which space and time merge into a single entity. “The universe just is: a fixed spacetime block,”say Ellis and Rothman. In this view, no instant has any special status: “All past and future times are equally present, and the present “now” is just one of an infinite number.”
This kind of “block universe” has indeed been studied by various physicists in recent decades with limited impact.
Today, Ellis and Rothman introduce a significant new type of block universe. They say the character of the block changes dramatically when quantum mechanics is thrown into the mix. All of a sudden, the past and the future take on entirely different characteristics. The future is dominated by the weird laws of quantum mechanics in which objects can exist in two places at the same time and particles can be so deeply linked that they share the same existence. By contrast, the past is dominated by the unflinching certainty of classical mechanics.
What’s interesting is that the transition between these states takes place largely in the present. It’s almost as if the past crystallizes out of the future, in the instant we call the present. Ellis and Rothman call this model the “crystallizing block universe” and go on to explore some of its properties.
Sick of politics 
December 22, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
I think the answer is that this is not science. This is bad theology and maths-mysticism posing as science. We have this parade of fanciful make-believe going on, and those who give it any credence at all are the same people who pre-emptively rubbish perfectly sound paradigms. The parade of make believe is usually conducted on the taxpayers dime. Whereas good new theory is often an afterwork affair.
December 23, 2009 at 9:40 pm |
I’d say it’s closer to philosophy.
December 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm |
From people who are not qualified to be philosophers.
We have a similar problem here as we have in economics. Economists who should know better, toadying to bigshot financier ponzi-artists, who don’t know a damn thing. And here we have real philosophers. Philosophers who can do the job. Somehow toadying to maths-boy 101 public servant alleged “physicist” science workers, who don’t have a serious philosophical bone in their body.
Everyone defers to the physicists. Everyone. All branches of science and even the philosophers seem to defer to the physicists. And not just the bad scientists either. Even really good scientists who haven’t perhaps had time to think about matters clearly. Even they seem to defer to the physicists.
But in sober reality our physicists are actually a bunch of dopes and mental cripples. Running along on the cult of personality alone.
December 24, 2009 at 12:07 am |
Surely this view is not new merely a restatement that relativity is a classical theory.
I’m also not sure about this assesment that the past is clasical and the future is quantum.
When a photon hits a screen in my two slit interference experiment, I know its location. I don’t know anything about its past trajectory however. I can’t say this photon travelled throught the left slit to strike the wall here.
I’m pleased you’ve finally defered to my opinion.
December 24, 2009 at 1:11 am |
I wonder what the “present” means in their model? Is the “present” in one spot “the same” as the “present” in another spot?
December 24, 2009 at 4:16 am |
“From people who are not qualified to be philosophers. ”
This from a lunatic who is not qualified to be anything.
December 24, 2009 at 4:25 am |
I would think that present would be on a “light cone” relative to a single observer.
December 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
Steve, I wonder how the futures and pasts of different observers in their model gel?
December 24, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
Its not worth speculating about. Its a stupid model based on stupid models, by people too stupid to revisit fundamental assumptions. Its an irritation since its just more taxpayer money be wasted by dummies.
December 24, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
“When a photon hits a screen….”
You don’t have any evidence for a photon for starters Steve. This is the unscience of it all. People just keep building on nonsense that they have no evidence for.
December 24, 2009 at 11:24 pm |
Graeme: Low intensity Compton scattering, for example, proves that photons exist.
December 25, 2009 at 1:00 am |
No it doesn’t.
December 25, 2009 at 1:02 am |
See you just sent me on a wild goose chase. Your link was an explanation of Compton scattering. And you merely lied and implicitly claimed that there was evidence that photons exist. When there isn’t.
December 25, 2009 at 1:04 am |
This is what you get from dumb scientists all the time. Timos lies and claims that such and such, and it could be anything, in this case Compton scattering, and he claims that proves that photons exist. Whereas its really just Timos lying.
December 25, 2009 at 1:34 am |
Compton scattering is irrefutable evidence that photons exist, Graeme.
Firstly, it’s “Tinos”.
Secondly, the third paragraph of that article indicates that the current mainstream theory is that Compton scattering proves photons exist. Therefore it’s you who should go into detail and demonstrate why that’s wrong, and present an alternative, or cite some work that does. Instead you called me a liar.
The only alternative was BKS theory. It was proven wrong when it was experimentally demonstrated that both momentum and energy are conserved for each scattering event.
h/(mc) ( 1-cos(theta) )
How do you get that fringe shift without photons, Graeme?
December 25, 2009 at 1:44 am |
Not only is it not irrefutable evidence that photons exist. Its not evidence at all. You are just lying. Anything with do. If you guys want to bolster up a really dumb theory anything will do. You don’t even know what evidence is fella.
Lets have some actual evidence for photons.
December 25, 2009 at 1:46 am |
You might have thought that what I’m after is for you to make a lying claim that this is irrefutable evidence. I assure you that this is not what I was after.
Lets have the actual evidence. And solid reasoning as to why you think its evidence. You are not exempt from reasoning. Suppose you call yourself a physicist. This does not exempt you from reasoning.
So no more lying. Just make good with the evidence and the reasoning behind it.
December 25, 2009 at 1:48 am |
“Secondly, the third paragraph of that article indicates that the current mainstream theory is that Compton scattering proves photons exist. ”
So you had nothing. You were bullshitting all along and relying on a claim from authority. You had nothing at all. No good. We’ve just got to stop this. The substitution of priesthood bullshitartistry where science and reason once was.
December 25, 2009 at 2:04 am |
“In physics, Compton scattering or the Compton effect is the decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of an X-ray or gamma ray photon, when it interacts with matter. ”
Why wouldn’t it? Light is wave movement. Wave movement through what? Well through something. Since waves are not what something is. Waves are what something does. We see that we expect X-rays and Gamma rays to lose energy TO THE MATTER if they are going to interact with that matter. How could it be otherwise? We know that the matter will absorb some of the energy. So Tinos was going to grab at anything. And because he’s part of the club he expected to get away with it.
The club of physicists, and their sycophants no longer believe that the rules apply to them. They refuse outright the need for them to be reasonable.
Of course the X-rays and Gamma rays will lose energy and gain wavelength. This simply follows from the known fact that electromagnetic energy interacts with matter. As straight and as basic as that. But you see Tinos wanted to defend priesthood dogma. So anything would do. Anything. Doesn’t matter. So long as it was sufficiently technical sounding to throw a bit of obscurantism into matters.
December 25, 2009 at 2:36 am |
“relying on a claim from authority”
I was just pointing out that it’s impolite of you to state that every physicist in the world is wrong without providing a citation or explaining why they’re wrong.
h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
is what I’m relying on. And I repeat my question, how do you get that without photons? Show me a valid mathematical derivation that goes from your wave idea (which is wrong by the way, since waves can be what something is) to that expression.
Graeme, it’s not too late for you to reject the nonsense you’ve come to believe, and actually seek truth.
December 25, 2009 at 3:04 am |
Don’t bullshit me idiot. Just come up with the evidence for photons. So far you’ve pretended to do so. But you refuse to actually do so. At first you said that you had evidence for photons. You don’t. So now you are asking me questions.
If you’ve got evidence make good with it.
Stop fucking around. Lets have the evidence. If it was protons and electrons you would have the evidence right there. The evidence for these two are solid. But its photons. You don’t have the evidence. Give me the evidence or admit you don’t have it.
December 25, 2009 at 3:08 am |
This is what we have got now. Where once there was scientists there are now public service bullshitartist ass-coverers. This is what stolen-money finance does. He says he has evidence. But he doesn’t. And instead of admitting the weakness of contemporary theory here, he’s straight onto the filibuster.
December 25, 2009 at 3:18 am |
h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
December 25, 2009 at 3:18 am |
“h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))”
Thats not evidence for anything. Thats just an attempt at obscurantism. So here you are, asscoverer. You are supposed to be a physicist, or one of their sycophants. And yet you don’t even know what evidence is. Thats just gibber mate.
So you to you, science worker, evidence is just you coming up with a formula and no context.
In fact we know that photon theory is inimical to the empirical evidence. We know this because light is wave motion. Its incompatible with this nonsense to do with particle physics. When we look at a shockwave moving through air, for example, we recognise that the shock wave moving at the speed of sound, is not the same as the air molecules themselves, moving at the speed of sound. If the air molecules are moving we see that is different. And we call this wind.
Yet the photon-believers don’t even make that elementary distinction. You cannot ask them whether the light is the photons themselves undulating up and down and if so why would they move that way? They don’t know themselves. They cannot explain their own model. All of a sudden they start pushing theological bullshit to do with this alleged dualistic nature of light.
But this is all bullshit. There is no dualistic nature of anything, much less light. Light moves in waves. So we are talking about a wave moving through a medium. What is the medium? Its a taboo in the priesthood to even explore the question. Because these are not scientists. These are public servants.
December 25, 2009 at 3:21 am |
h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
What is that?
A formula. Standing on its own. Not evidence for anything. See you are an idiot. You don’t even know what evidence.
Supposing I ask someone for evidence for Sasquatch. And he writes down a formula. Same thing here. You don’t even know what evidence is. Its not you writing down a formula you complete fuckwit.
So lets have that evidence for the photon. Or admit you don’t have it.
December 25, 2009 at 3:24 am |
Are you going to come up with evidence or are you going to filibuster.
Stop being a cunt. And make good with the evidence or retract.
December 25, 2009 at 3:27 am |
You got that evidence fella?
No you don’t.
So admit it.
December 25, 2009 at 3:32 am |
“When a photon hits a screen in my two slit interference experiment, I know its location. ”
So we are back to here. Edney knows no such thing. Since Edney has no evidence for any such thing as a photon. In fact the contrary evidence is very convincing. As the selfsame experiment that Edney is talking about proves that light is a wave. Not a particle but a wave. And an item cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time.
So we have the contrary evidence. We have the evidence that light is not photons. Rather it is waves. But we don’t have so far any positive evidence for these photons. So they don’t exist. Since if you have evidence against their existence and no evidence for their existence then what you have is a closed case.
December 25, 2009 at 3:55 am |
h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This expression models the data obtained in Compton scattering experiments. Light existing as photons is necessary to explain it (given that BKS theory is wrong). You must derive this formula, or cite someone who derives it, without assuming photons, or else accept that photons exist.
All matter & light is of both a particle & wave nature. You must accept this if you wish to really understand reality.
Do not make another post that does not either include an apology, or a derivation of the scattering formula.
December 25, 2009 at 3:59 am |
Lets go over it again. What is the evidence for photons. So far we have evidence that light is waves. It cannot be waves and particles at the same time.
Somebody can use a shortcut to explain something they don’t know the answer to. But this is not evidence for the shortcut. Supposing you want to bring in God, the multi-verse, or space aliens for something you cannot explain. But this is a shortcut. The shortcut ought to have been seen for what it is.
Lets have evidence for photons. It would have to be very powerful evidence. Since we already know that light is waves. And it cannot be both. Photons, as postulated, cannot be the material, that the waves are moving through. So they ought not have been postulated. Since clearly they don’t exist as advertised.
So lets have the evidence for the photons. Not evidence that physicists have taken a theoretical shortcut.
December 25, 2009 at 4:16 am |
I want the laity to understand the magnitude of the idiocy Tinos is trying to put over here. Supposing its been proved to you that light is waves. And you accept that this means that light is moving through something. Just like all other wave-movement that we know of.
Now somebody tells you that when these waves hit a particle they scatter. Now this would not be momentous news for you. But Timos has a follow up. He’s saying that this scattering proves that the light is not waves. And these waves scattering are not waves. Timos tells you that rather the wave scattering into other waves means that they were never waves. But rather they were particles. Particles called photons.
Well thats idiocy.
So what has gone on here? Well supposing you want to calculate exactly how the scattering will take place? Before you find yourself a solution some fellow beats you to it with a particle model, and some formulas. Well thats fine if you realise that this is just a template for predictions. But its hardly evidence for photons. Its just a shortcut.
We must stop thinking that these people are smart. Because they are dummies. We expect light to scatter. No-one ever came up with some reason to believe that light would not scatter when it hit matter.
As a matter of fact it would be an utter mystery if light did not scatter when it hit matter. Photons don’t enter into this story.
Light can scatter when it meets matter. Why wouldn’t it? Thats exactly what you would expect.
THEY ….. WILL …. GRAB ….. ANYTHING ……. and call it evidence. They no longer know what evidence is.
December 25, 2009 at 4:18 am |
“h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This expression models the data obtained in Compton scattering experiments. ”
Right. And thats all it does. Light scatters when it hits objects. This is consistent with light being waves and nothing else. Since it comes in as waves, and it scatters as waves, and it stays waves at all times. Nowehere NOWHERE is there a photon in this story. Always remember that physics public servants are even more stupid than other public servants.
December 25, 2009 at 4:26 am |
“h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This expression models the data obtained in Compton scattering experiments. ”
Do people now see the same intellectual mistakes reverberating through the sciences? This is just the same as the global warming dummies mistaking the model for the reality. So the idiot Edney gives you the results of climate models as evidence. Even though none of the models can predict anything. The simple mistake of forgetting that the model is not the reality and so isn’t evidence for the worthiness of the model. And of course if it fails in prediction it is not evidence for anything at all, except for the lack of ability of the science workers involved.
Notice how Edney would think that referring back to the the model of special relativity was evidence for special relativity. So this is just mixing up the model with the reality. We see the neoclassicals are notorious for this fault in economics as well.
So its the same intellectual ineptitude all the way down the line.
December 25, 2009 at 4:49 am |
“All matter & light is of both a particle & wave nature. You must accept this if you wish to really understand reality.”
See this is the opposite of the truth. If anyone wants to understand reality one must understand that something can be a particle. But that a wave is not what something IS its what something DOES. And so a phenomenon such as light cannot be both a wave, and a swarm of particles, at the same time.
Thats reality. Since we have the empirical evidence to prove that light travels in waves, we know that light is not made of photons. Since photons are not about to travel in waves, undulating at the speed of light. So the existence of the photons are negated outright by what we know about light. That is to save that light is an example of a energy travelling in waves. Do we know what the medium is? No. Not at least in the mainstream. Well I would want to find out myself. But the anti-science idiots like Tinos get in the way of us finding these things out. By insisting on their ludicrous dogma, they form a barrier against authentic scientific enquiry.
December 25, 2009 at 4:52 am |
h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This is evidence for photons. It is not a shortcut: there is no other way to derive it. If you find one, you will most likely share in a Nobel prize.
And light is both a particle & wave. You should face reality. You’re confusing nature with what you’d like it to be. As Feynman put it,
“I think nature’s imagination is so much greater than man’s, she’s never going to let us relax.”
h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
There is no question that this correctly predicts the results of all Compton scattering experiments, and it has been experimentally verified many times over. Go grab a pen & paper and try to deduce this expression (I have). Please don’t come back until you do.
December 25, 2009 at 5:01 am |
Look you fucking cunt. Come up with evidence for photons or fucking admit you don’t have it.
You are just an idiot mate.
Waves come in. Waves got out scattered. Thats not evidence for particles you fucking moron. Its evidence for waves.
YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM LOGIC AND REASON.
Waves going in and getting scattered is evidence for waves. Not particles.
Now come up with the evidence for photons or fuck off you fucking lying cunt.
December 25, 2009 at 5:04 am |
Have you got that yet you cunt?
Waves coming in. Waves hitting matter. Waves scattering. There is photons in that story you fucking moron. This is what we are getting from you public servants. Belligerent idiocy.
Waves. Thats what light is. Its wave action. We have very good evidence for that. You are just a fucking moron pal.
We have evidence for light being waves. You haven’t come up with any evidence for light being particles. These are not compatible. ‘
You are a blockhead mate. A dummy. Now get your act together you cunt.
December 25, 2009 at 5:09 am |
This is what we have when we have waves. We have wave motion through a medium. Now the medium can be made up of particles. That f-i-n-e fine. But the medium is not the wave phenomenon itself.
The wave phenomenon cannot be itself and its own medium. When we are talking about light we are clearly talking about the waves. And a true scientist, as opposed to a blockhead like yourself, would take some interest in what that medium actually is.
Its because of blockheads like you, that no progress gets made in finding out just what the medium is and finding out about this mediums nature.
Now I’m not interested in hero-worship or the cult of personality. So there is no use mentioning Feynman in this regard. Nice man that he probably was, name-dropping isn’t part of logic, reason or science.
December 25, 2009 at 5:15 am |
“And light is both a particle & wave.”
No it is not. This is against reason. But its also runs against the evidence. As witness, despite the fervency of your irrational belief you cannot come up with any evidence for it. And the proof, and it is proof, that light is made of waves, disproves that it is particles. Simple as that.
Now obviously waves are pretty hard to throw into hypothetical calculations. So if I was going to try and work out a formula for calculating scattering its easy to see how someone might make more progress with this story if one super-imposed a particle model on the situation.
Still we are left with only evidence that light is waves, and no evidence that light is particles, after going through such an exercise. We would find out a lot more about it if belligerent morons like you weren’t getting in the way.
When a wave crashes on a rock and you can the spray being sent back the other way here you really are talking about the particles that make up the medium. There is nothing that points to light being photons in any of this.
December 25, 2009 at 5:17 am |
This is what we have all the way down the line in science now. Idiots like Tinos. Such a fuckwit he doesn’t have a clue what evidence is any more.
December 25, 2009 at 5:19 am |
Come up with evidence you cunt or retract. Simple as that. Evidence or retract.
This is the problem. Public servant science workers refuse to admit they are wrong when they have been proved wrong utterly. They now believe they are exempt from evidence or reason. And this due only to their parasiticial status. Its precisely because they are financed by the public tit that they believe that evidence and reason simply do not apply to them.
December 25, 2009 at 5:26 am |
If you are not exempt from reason and logic then you must face reality. And reality would tell you that once you prove something is a wave (ie not an object, but movement THROUGH objects) then you have proved utterly that that thing is not an object. Since a wave is movement through objects. Not the objects themselves.
Thats facing reality. But in the view of shit-for-brains Tinos, facing reality is utterly rejecting reality. It is instead giving in to whining and accepting the dogma of the trinity. That something be two contrary things at once. Its just more bullshit theology and obviously so.
Once you find out something is a wave you’ve proved that it is not a particle. But rather an action moving through particles.
Consider if light was moving particles. Moving particles. We will call them dopeons. These moving dopeons create waves in this story. How could they do so if they were moving with the wavefront. They’d have to gyrate up and down. For no reason. So thats really the end of the dopeon story. Or it ought to be. But no. Physicists, being the most stupid pricks in the world, reckon thats not right. They reckon Joe public has to swallow their dogma and keep on absorbing their irrational bullshit.
December 25, 2009 at 6:05 am |
Graeme: Feynman was a genius who’s physics ability in high school probably exceeded what yours will ever be. He spent decades thinking about this problem. You should probably listen to what he has to say.
No one said photons gyrate.
A wave is an object.
Don’t make another post until you work through this derivation and either accept the existence of photons or come up with your own derivation of the formula
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This formula correctly describes nature. If you don’t like it, tough. There is just as much evidence for light being composed of particles as there is evidence that it’s a wave. It’s both.
Graeme, you have here the opportunity to face reality and embrace nature for what it is. Don’t turn from the light. The pastor at the Christmas Eve ceremony last night talked about how those in darkness are always repelled by the light. He was right.
December 25, 2009 at 6:59 am |
No I”m afraid we don’t do science via the cult of personality and or hero worship,
Now you stupid twat. Lets have some evidence for photons or admit that you are wrong.
December 25, 2009 at 7:04 am |
Admit that you are a lying cunt that doesn’t so much know what evidence is.
Admit that you have no evidence whatsoever for photons.
Admit that you are not competent to be a scientist on any level at all. And that your claims to physics knowledge are a fraud.
December 25, 2009 at 7:21 am |
This fellow is part of the priesthood or one of their sycophants. So his bad character will extend to never admitting that a wave is NOT an object.
We’ve just got to grow enough moral character not to be taken in by morons like this. It ought to be a matter of personal pride that we don’t be ever taken in by their constant whining and special pleading against reason and evidence.
Once you give in wimp out and outsource your brain in the area of physics, where the potential for obscurantism is so high, then it never ends. As we have seen with the global warming fraud. Or alternatively with the nonsensical Keynesian dogma of the fiscal multiplier. In the end all these wrong dogmas are used for the purpose of stealing.
December 25, 2009 at 7:40 am |
A wave passing through a slinky, for example, has a mass, momentum & energy. It is an object.
And just to emphasise how important it is, here is the experimental fact you need to explain without photons:
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Oh, and I never claimed to be a physicist.
December 25, 2009 at 8:10 am |
No a wave passing through a slinky is not an object. The slinky is the object. The wave passing through the slinky is not.
Retract. You can at least get that right. So far you have a 100% failure record. You are an idiot. I would not be surprised if you were Jarrah Job. Such a comprehensive idiot you are.
December 25, 2009 at 8:13 am |
So you are not even a physicist. But you are such a toadying wanker that you are supporting this nonsense with absolutely no evidence at all.
Lets have that evidence for photons idiot. Now it may be the case that you can find someone who has some sort of evidence. Since you yourself have failed in this regard. I suppose you are a CO2 bedwetter as well no doubt?
Evidence means nothing to a moron like yourself.
December 25, 2009 at 8:57 am |
1. AGW is irrelevant.
2. Evidence for photons: lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
3. All waves (including the one in the slinky) are particles, and all particles are waves. This is one of the greatest discoveries ever made (not that anyone really understands it yet). It’s depressing that you’d put politics before such an incredible insight.
4. You need to derive lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta)) without reference to photons to make plausible your claim that photons don’t exist.
December 25, 2009 at 9:33 am |
I expected to see spam comments on this thread given its exponential increase in size.
An example of a person coming up with their own theories of physics because they don’t like undergrad physics can be found in the “The Final Theory”, available for sale in many bookstores.
December 25, 2009 at 10:09 am |
Why did you comment in the first place Sacha? You are not qualified to comment on this matter. You are not a scientist. You cannot think for yourself. You are a proven moron. The last time I saw you you had fallen for the global warming fraud. Nowhere have you shown a capacity to think with reason or to appreciate the importance of evidence. So why comment when you are a self-selected idiot? This is no scientist this Tinos. Its probably just Jarrah Job or some other twit.
Now do you have evidence for photons Sacha. No you don’t. You are a fuckwit mate. You are an idiot. You’re always going to be an idiot. No evidence exists that you can approach any subject at all with rationality.
December 25, 2009 at 10:11 am |
Now does anyone here have evidence for photons yes or no? Yes or no?
We see the light waves coming in. We see them scattering. So far only evidence for waves. No evidence for photons? Now have you got that evidence Sacha? Or are you just being a fucking brainless mindless moron as usual?
December 25, 2009 at 10:25 am |
Nothing could be more useless than irrationality, mindlessness and toadying in a scientist. Since when you want to find stuff out, people who assume that they already know stuff, are just going to get in the way. Fortunately neither of you are scientists and you could never be scientists, being irrational and toadying sheeple. But unfortunately it is manifest that the two of you are public servant parasites. Which means of course that the rest of us have to support your useless obstructionist dumb asses.
The whole key to scientific enquiry is to always go over fundamental assumptions. You can never revisit fundamental assumptions enough. Since if these assumptions are wrong they create a dead end for anything subsequently built on them. And the current taxeater science institution is geared never to do that. This is why these stupid theories, like the ones discussed above, are printed in major magazines, despite their baselessness and implausibility. Anything at all will be printed, without discrimination, so long as it builds on the errors that sustain the public servant priesthood. The only answer to this nightmare is to take stolen money financing away from education and science. Otherwise we just keep turning out more toadying cretins like Sacha and Tinos.
December 25, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Sacha: I know of at least one book (Einstein Plus Two) that attempts to disprove special relativity that isn’t just written by a crank (like your example). The book was of course wrong (I checked) in its main claims.
Graeme: I have no idea who this Jarrah Job is. Whether or not Sacha & I are public servants or believe in AGW is irrelevant to whether or not photons exist.
Irrefutable evidence of photons:
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
You need to show how this formula can be deduced without the photons assumption. If you can’t, you must accept that you are wrong and that nature is completely different to your preconceived notions of it.
December 25, 2009 at 10:56 am |
Hope everyone enjoyed Christmas.
December 25, 2009 at 11:40 am |
Tinos:
Ignore birdie like everyone else does other than to make fun of him. He’s mentally stable and has no idea about science or economics as ever he does attest at times.
December 25, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
Shut up Cambria you dope. If you have a book that attempts to disprove relativity and fails that is a very bad book. Since special relativity is a very stupid theory and anyone can disprove readily. The problem is that idiots like Timos and Sacha do not know proof from disproof, nor do they know what evidence is any more.
So Sacha doesn’t have evidence for photons. Nor does Tinos. How about you Cambria you dumb wop. Do you have evidence for photons? I’m not saying that nobody ever had any such evidence. But we haven;t seen it yet. Tinos is such a dope that he reckons that if you have waves coming in, those waves hit matter and are scattered into other waves, the moron reckons thats evidence for photons. Its evidence directly against photons. Its evidence for the fact that light is waves and not particle movement.
December 25, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
Note how Tinos so lacks affinity for science and reality he is constantly getting mixed up between an aid to calculation (that is to say a formula based on a model) and the reality itself.
December 25, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
“Irrefutable evidence of photons:
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
You need to show how this formula can be deduced without the photons assumption. ”
So there we have it. A complete moron who has no understanding of reality at all. Who doesn’t even have a grasp on the process by which general models are made and formulas are derived.
Supposing if you didn’t know that formula, and were trying to figure out a way of predicting how the light would scatter? Waves are just pretty hard to work with. Supposing you were stuck. Well interpolating a particle matter model on the subject might help you get unstuck so that you could put together a generalised rule in formula form. One could see how that would make things easier to work with.
But you’d be utterly delusional to then turn around and and delude yourself that your formula was evidence for photons. We have evidence for light as wave movement. And this evidence for light as wave movement directly contradicts the concept of light being particle movement. Since it manifestly cannot be both. Its one or the other.
What we want to know, is what the medium for the light is. Suppose you have a wave splashing against a rock. Some of the spray is the movement of the particles of the medium itself. The main point is we don’t want to confuse the two. You could have some sort of ricochet phenomenon that reflected the action of the medium itself, as opposed to the light, which is a wave moving through a medium. But this is never really here nor there. What is important is that one not act like a dickhead and mistake the wave for its medium.
December 25, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
Great work Tinos. Your persistent idiocy has inspired a thread. In your own small and blinkered way you therefore might have helped get the message out to the laity of what a mess the world of science is currently in.
December 25, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
Here is easily the best model of light available at the moment.
This is the only model which both describes all the properties of light, and also the incredible apparent propagation speed of gravity. Which if we relied on particle physics, would imply propagation speeds many billions of times the speed of light.
December 25, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
jc: Did you mean “stable” or “unstable”? I still have hope for Graeme!
Graeme:
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This formula describes a property of light, one that can only be explained by light being made of particles. The rope theory you linked to can’t explain it, so it’s wrong.
By the way, gravity propagates at the speed of light.
Don’t make another post until you can derive the scattering formula. You must face the possibility that everything you think you know about the world is wrong.
Oh, and I won’t be posting on your blog. I trust Jason a lot more than I trust you. As for your blog’s title, I’d vote for Kevin Rudd over you any day.
December 25, 2009 at 10:54 pm |
No thats rubbish. It can be described as waves coming in and waves scattering out. Pretty simple you fucking moron. No particles involved you fucking idiot.
There are no photons in this story. Of course the MEDIUM of light can be made of particles. But these particles cannot be photons. Because in your fantasy photons move at the speed of light. This would be like saying that you cannot have sound without the wind blowing at the speed of sound.
December 25, 2009 at 10:55 pm |
You are such a fucking dummy mate. You cannot seem to tell the difference between the light-waves and the medium they move through. You are a blockhead. Surely you are fatfingers. How can any two different people be this fucking moronic.
December 25, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
So here we have waves coming in. Crashing on an object. At that point where the waves crash, you can have manifestations of the lights medium that could be mistaken for light as particles.
But there is no photons anywhere in this story. Waves coming in. Waves scattering. Only a complete fucking moron would see evidence for light-speed moving photons in such a story.
December 25, 2009 at 11:05 pm |
Does anyone have any REAL evidence for photons?
Any evidence at all? Since so far all we have is evidence for waves, and of course for a medium that the waves move through. The story of photons is a story of idiocy and unscience.
December 25, 2009 at 11:09 pm |
Tinos, I’m sure that jc would have meant “unstable”. Bird has abused practically anyone he’s come in contact over the internet – the stuff here is extremely mild – he’s been banned from many blogs for his abusiveness.
In terms of Bird’s views of physics, I suspect that, in common with some people, Bird doesn’t like theories which do not seem intuitively obvious to him – in fact he rejects them. While he’s somewhat curious about the world, he does not think the explanations go beyond a pretty basic level. The obsession with photons “obviously” only being waves is a case in point.
As has been pointed out to him ad nauseum, he’s welcome to put forward his own theories of physics – and if they “explain’ the world better than existing theories, well great. To my knowledge, he hasn’t put any forward. I’m not aware of any mathematical theories he’s put forward either.
December 26, 2009 at 2:22 am |
Do you have any evidence for Photons Sacha?
I cannot stand bullshitartists. Like we have to believe there are these photons that bugger off at the speed of light, from wherever they are created on an ex-nihilo basis, for no reason at all, and this moron says we have to buy all that on the basis of a situation where waves come in, break and scatter. It would be the same if we were talking about sound waves breaking on a cliff. Its true if we wanted to make a detailed account of how things worked bouncing off a cliff, we might have to go down to the particulate level to say something about the nature of the echo.
But we wouldn’t then conclude that the sound was particles moving, rather than a wave moving through particles. Face it. Tinos is just a moron. Just a mindless toadying idiot.
December 26, 2009 at 3:14 am |
Sacha: I have the (possibly irrational) hope that no matter how insane a person is they can be brought back to sanity through reason and a commitment to science. To my dismay, though, I just found out that he’s been at this for years. There might be no helping him.
Graeme, all sound is made of particles called phonons, and these always travel at the speed of sound.
And yes, I expect you to completely change the way you look at the universe based solely on the precise way in which light scatters. This is what the scientific method is all about: throwing out preconceived notions and politically correct crap in favour of what’s actually observed in nature.
Remember, photons are the only way that light’s behaviour can be explained. To show otherwise you’d have to derive the scattering formula without the photons assumption (a feat for which you’d get a Nobel).
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
December 26, 2009 at 3:46 am |
“Graeme, all sound is made of particles called phonons, and these always travel at the speed of sound.”
RRRRIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTT
You see how stupid this dummy is peope? But thats good that you mentioned phonons. Since they are equivalent in dopiness to the photon dogma. So thats a good comparison to give the issue some perspective. Much of particles physics is straight public-service idiocy. The photon dogma is every bit as foolish and the phonon stupidity. And thats a very good comparison indeed.
December 26, 2009 at 4:17 am |
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Derive it!
December 26, 2009 at 4:43 am |
Tinos – that’s not an irrational view – it’s just that Bird’s behaviour over years does not suggest it would be worthwhile to attempt it.
However, should you wish to attempt it, it may or may not be worthwhile to attempt to lead him through a discussion as to why the wave nature of light is not a complete description, e.g.
1. if light would be completely described as a wave, it would have certain properties (e.g. it would scatter off particles in a well-known way)
2. experiment has shown that it doesn’t have those properties – it has some other properties
3. so light must be able to be described in some other way, perhaps in addition to the wave description.
Let’s see how that goes.
I’m surprised he hasn’t gone after the high priests of mathematics – with their absurd non-commuting matrices…
December 26, 2009 at 5:04 am |
“While he’s somewhat curious about the world, he does not think the explanations go beyond a pretty basic level.”
Actually I think Sacha’s nailed it. Without the interwebs the Birdnut would be spending his days scribbling down his crazed thoughts in exercise books, which would only be discovered upon the arrival of forensics officers following reports of foul smells emanating from his house.
Tinos, this is an idiot who, among other things, has bought into the whole 2012 crock; believes that humans are the result of alien experiments; and endorses a system of economics essentially based on Pol Pot.
In short, he’s an uneducated buffoon with anger management issues, and whose views on anything should not only be rejected, but mocked relentlessly for their unintended comedy value.
It’s fun poking him with a stick, though.
December 26, 2009 at 5:56 am |
I was wondering why this post had so many comments. Then my heart sank as I looked down the list – Jason hasn’t banned the Turkey yet.
Tinos, when Bird says “Lets have the actual evidence”, what he wants is a box of photons. That is, you would have to give him a container with microscopic points of light that rattled and bounced around. Because in his head, particles are tiny little spheres – really small versions of the billiard ball analogy – and can’t be anything else. Waves, according to Bird (as far as I can tell), are particles travelling in a sinusoid through an existing medium, and can’t be anything else.
He mentioned me because several times in the past I tried to get him to accept, well, any scientific finding from the past 300 years. It was a dead end. I did try Sacha’s suggestion of leading him from logical conclusion to logical conclusion, baby steps, one at a time… but I admit I failed miserably. I don’t think you’re going to get anywhere either, I’m sorry to say.
December 26, 2009 at 10:47 am |
You see how this works. Everytime these dummies have a problem they make up a new particle to solve that problem. But mindless toady’s like Tinos and Sacha, who have never learnt to think for themselves in any shape or form, just buy into it no matter how implausible.
Lets have that evidence for phonons. Then we can compare it to the evidence for photons. Which in both cases will be no evidence at all. This is after all the public service for you.
December 26, 2009 at 10:48 am |
“1. if light would be completely described as a wave, it would have certain properties (e.g. it would scatter off particles in a well-known way)
2. experiment has shown that it doesn’t have those properties – it has some other properties
3. so light must be able to be described in some other way, perhaps in addition to the wave description.”
Thats all rubbish Sacha. You are making it up. You cannot think for yourself. You are a moron.
December 26, 2009 at 10:49 am |
Sacha don’t bother with the photons. How about justify the phonons. I don’t think you are ever going to twig to the reality of how these people go about their nonsense. You are just too much of a blockhead fella.
December 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
Bullshit won’t cut it Sacha, Human-made models are not evidence for anything except that humans sometimes make models.
Does anyone have evidence for photons. This is not merely evidence for a medium that light moves through that is made of photons. This must be evidence for particles of light, that also move at the speed of light. It has to be evidence for the entire photon bullshitartistry.
December 26, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
This is not merely evidence for a medium that light moves through that is made of PARTICLES. Is what I meant. This absolute moron Tinos has claimed that the existence of a human-made model is evidence for photons. Thats idiocy. Thats only evidence for humans making models. This is reminiscient of the Edney idiocy of computer models being evidence in favour of the global warming racket. Remembering that Sacha fell for this racket also. Being a mindless toadying fool.
December 26, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
I think we can wrap this story up then. Because you idiots aren’t coming up with evidence for photons. And the toadying of all of you to the idiots model described in the article above is truly an embarrassment.
December 26, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
More evidence of mindless toadying from Sacha:
“Two key things struck me about that interview:
1. Has Plimer published a paper containing his calculations on carbon dioxide emissions by volcanoes? If not, why not?
2. His failure to answer the question as to why he chose a baseline year of 1998 to compare all subsequent yearly temperatures was unfortunate.”
Note how this has got fucking nothing to do with anything. Plimer during this rigup made it quite clear where his estimate was coming from. From the chemistry of sedimentary rocks. Also the Monbiot/Jones idiocy was more than evident. Since they chose to make gospel a 1991 study that claimed that sub-sea volcanic emissions and open air volcanic emissions were roughly similar. A self-evidently ridiculous contention in 1991. Sacha being a moron did not notice that it was George Monbiot who would answer no questions. And that he merely deflected this by claiming it was Plimer. In other words this was a frantic leftist reversal from Monbiot.
On top of that Plimer gave us enough facts for anyone with a brain to see that the Monbiot and Tony Jones claim was idiocy. Since there are 240,000 underwater volcanoes, and 68000 kilometres of rift zones. So if industrial activity was to release 130 times as much CO2 as Monbiot, being a complete fucking idiot and a liar, had claimed, this would be more than the output of 31, 200 000 underwater volcanoes and more than the equivalent of 8, 840 000 kilometres of underwater riftzones.
So it was Monbiot and Tony Jones, Club Troppo and Sacha shown to be idiots on this matter as well. And not Plimer. And all Sacha can do, since he is a moron, is talk about the total irrelevancy of the ideology of peer review. Which has got nothing to do with science and is the enemy of science. As the idiots Monbiot and Tony Jones have shown decisively in this base.
December 26, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
This is what the toadying nincompoops like Sacha and Tinos always do. They just filibuster and whine, constantly invoking authority, until the victim of their zombie mindlessness gives up and goes away. They are human flotsam and jetsam. Speedbumps and obstacles on the road to enlightenment.
December 26, 2009 at 10:45 pm |
Graeme: Again, our views on AGW are completely irrelevant to the existence of photons.
The phonoatomic effect is experimental evidence that can only be explained by sound being made of phonons.
We can indeed wrap this story up. It is impossible to derive the scattering formula without recognising that light is made of photons.
Remember,
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Reality is precisely described by this model. You must explain it without photons or else admit they exist.
December 27, 2009 at 2:27 am |
Tinos, Bird will just go on and on in the same vein. He doesn’t change.
December 27, 2009 at 2:34 am |
Tinos, you may find Bird’s latest blog entry interesting:
December 27, 2009 at 4:09 am |
“The phonoatomic effect is experimental evidence that can only be explained by sound being made of phonons.”
No again you are just making it up and talking idiocy. The phonatomic effect in no way even begins to suggest that there are these particles, created ex-nihilo, that suddenly bugger off at the speed of light from where they were created for no reason at all.
This is why you can never make a logical argument about anything Sacha. You just grab at any stupidity and you say “Look there is evidence”. But you are in no position to explain why you think this is evidence for tea-cosy’s on rasta maori kids. Let alone fanciful particles created from nothing that bugger off at the speed of light.
All the effect shows is that the waves of light interact with matter. We knew that already. At the point at which they make this interaction, we might well expect whatever the waves move through to be part of this interaction. In fact we know that this would be the case in any wave action. When the sound waves hit a cliff and echo-off obviously air molecules are part of this story. This does not mean that the air molecules are created ex-nihilo, or that they suddenly race off at the speed of sound for no reason.
Now as to that link that Tinos is quoting, the logic is entirely unassailable. Particularly the logic of the first part of it. One may see that second half as being open to question. But the first half of the post is not open to question at all. Not unless you have made it an article of faith that the universe has always been here with its exact same energy and mass content.
So the first half of that post is simply not even open to dispute. Tinos is a moron to dispute it. I’ll repeat it here to show which part of the post is not open to dispute:
“At best this is a speculative and unscientific doctrine. Consider what it would take to prove this business? You see existence exists! The mass and energy is here. The existence of the mass is evident during every waking moment. There is no gainsaying that the mass is here. Therefore for this bogus doctrine to hold sway, in the universal sense, we have to postulate that the universe has always been here. And that the universe has always contained precisely the same amount of mass and energy as it does now. This is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable proposition. It is therefore an unscientific proposition that is getting in the way of science. There really isn’t much else to say about this business. Straight logic precludes there being a theoretical proscription on the creation of new mass and energy directly from the fact that these things exist. Sorry this is such a short post. The subject is one of straight and undeniable logic. There truly isn’t anything more to say about this at all.”
This is straight logic. Unassailable. Not open to dispute. Only a moron like Tinos would even try.
December 27, 2009 at 4:12 am |
“Tinos, Bird will just go on and on in the same vein. He doesn’t change.”
Its your irrationality, toadying, and mindlessness that never going to change. And it won’t change until we get all you parasites sacked. Feeble faux-libertarians do not realise the seriousness of this subject. They do not realise that we are essentially doomed if we keep science and education in stolen-money hands. You parasites cannot be reasoned with.
Consider you posting that work of mine that is unassailable as to its logic. Logic and reason mean nothing to you Sacha. This is because you are an idiot.
December 27, 2009 at 5:03 am |
Jarrah: I don’t want Graeme to think that it’s impossible (or even difficult) to answer his “objections”.
Sacha: I can’t decide if he’ll attack the non-commuting matrices, or the imaginary numbers.
Graeme: You seem to be confusing the sound particles (phonons) with photons.
In experiments it was discovered that
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This result can only be explained with the existence of photons. You should therefore accept there existence. The only way you could ever convince me otherwise is by deducing it in some other way. So don’t make another post unless you work that out.
By the way, conservation of energy in closed systems has been verified countless times, and never falsified (and it is falsifiable). Don’t post about this again unless you can experimentally demonstrate otherwise.
December 27, 2009 at 5:11 am |
“This result can only be explained with the existence of photons.”
Not at all. Its a formula that still works even though we know for a fact that light is waves.
Nothing about the working of this formula tells us that there are particles created ex-nihilo that bugger off at the speed of light after they are created. Nothing. All it tells us is that we made an impromptu model in order to create a working formula.
Just accept that you are a fuckwit, who doesn’t know what evidence is.
Imagine the mindlessness of someone who puts down a formula in the place of evidence? When the only evidence we have is for light as wave movement. Which negates absolutely light as particles which move at the speed of those waves. Total disproof.
December 27, 2009 at 5:15 am |
Have we established now that light is wave action? If it was anything else you moronic cunts would have some evidence.
Wave action means wave-and-medium. And any particles, or what have you, that make up that movement, do not move at the speed of that wave. Thats just a fact. So if you want to talk about particles you might think are involved with light fine. But they are not photons. Since the photon dogma insists that the photons move with the light. All the way with the light.
Now you admit you are wrong you idiotic, toadying cunts.
This is just like these fucking threads of doom with moronic bankers like Fyodor and Reynolds. Stupid bastards who would go on arguing, in defiance of logic and known economic science.
December 27, 2009 at 5:19 am |
I’ll accept speculation on your part about light particles that richochet off matter and for some tiny unkown space move at the speed of the wave moving through them. That would be a valid speculation.
But this idea of mixing the medium up with the wave moving through it is unacceptable. You ought to all voluntarily submit for castration to make sure the stupid gene is not passed on.
When we are talking about the photon lie we are not just talking about some particles that are held to be part of the light phenomenon. The photon lie tells us that photons travel across space for billions of years at the speed of light. This is just ridiculous. They would have no reason to do so. But a wave moving through a meidum would have such a reason. Particularly a torsion wave moving through orthogonal ropes.
December 27, 2009 at 5:26 am |
“Tinos, when Bird says “Lets have the actual evidence”, what he wants is a box of photons.”
No I don’t want a bunch of photons you silly cunt. I want some evidence. I want some evidence why you stupid cunts are so fucking dumb that you insist on mixing up the wave with its medium.
Yes it is true that when a wave hits a solid object then you do have a period where the wave and its medium get kind of mixed up. I accept that. What we cannot ever accept is the photon bullshit. Because the photon idiocy is the very essence of not understanding the difference between a wave and its medium.
Now Jarrah. When this stuff, don’t bullshit the kids. Tell them the various theories. And then tell them how stupid people are mixing up the wave and its medium, and then getting all mystical on us and saying…. “Its a duality. You know. Like the son the father and the holy ghost being a trinity.”
We just have to get away from irrationality in science. I’m sorry you had to hear it from me but reification and irrationality is not part of science. Probably they were a reaction to the horror of world war I, more than anything else.
December 27, 2009 at 6:11 am |
Graeme: No one has ever said that photons are created out of nothing. Nor has anyone said that photons are the medium light travels through.
The scattering formula represents evidence. Similar to how a sentence does.
Light is made of waves, I never doubted that. This does not necessitate a medium, though. This is just what the evidence proves!
Photons travel for billions of years because of (for one) conservation of momentum.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
You need to demonstrate that this formula can be explained without photons. That means a rigorous mathematical derivation. It is impossible to explain with your orthogonal ropes theory, so it is wrong.
December 27, 2009 at 6:25 am |
jesus joseph and mary
I didn’t expect to find this many comments when I got home.
Graeme you are free to challenge people but please tone down the language.
December 27, 2009 at 8:15 am |
Bird, I don’t receive a cent from the public purse to do mathematics. I do it for fun.
Tinos, I bet you’ll never see a derivation of that formula from Bird.
December 27, 2009 at 8:33 am |
Come on Jason. These are just bastards. They refuse to come up with evidence and pretend that they have. What work are you doing Sacha? Don’t tell me you aren’t on public service welfare. You would be unemployable in the private sector. You always jump to the wrong side of the issue based on toadying alone. No-one who has to get results needs people like that working for them. :
Look at this moron for example
“lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
You need to demonstrate that this formula can be explained without photons. That means a rigorous mathematical derivation. It is impossible to explain with your orthogonal ropes theory, so it is wrong”
The formula still works with the orthogonol ropes theory. But no-one can integrate photon theory into the fact that light consists of waves. So he is just an idiot. He just keeps lying. He won’t stop lying. You ought to put your foot down or wipe his posts.
No-one who pushes the wave theory of light is denying that the formula is going to work. Since the formula is based on empirical experimentation.
So he’s just lying. You shouldn’t allow people to spam like this.
December 27, 2009 at 8:37 am |
Tinos. Either come up with the evidence or retract. The formula is empirically based. Nothing in that formula is evidence for magical things called photons that travel for millions of years across the universe at the same speed as the waves that are light.
Come up with the evidence you stupid moronic little toadying prick.
Jason do not allow these threads of doom. This is just a situation where people who don’t want to face reality keep spamming because they know I cannot get my hands around their lying throats. He won’t come up with the evidence. He just keeps lying.
Its not OK for science worker toady’s to be exempt from reason. We have seen the consequences of that with the global warming fraud.
December 27, 2009 at 8:38 am |
Lets have that retraction Tinos. We know that it is not acceptable to confuse a wave with its medium.
December 27, 2009 at 8:43 am |
What was the result of those threads of doom you encouraged at Catallaxy?
Did Andrew or Fyodor or anyone else manage to change the reality of banking behaviour or new money creation? You will see that I was merely going along with the reality of the matter all this time, years before the monetary crisis. Nothing changed. Andrew must have just got sick of lying. You suddenly must have decided you didn’t want to talk nonsense about money creation. But the reality of money creation never changed.
Likewise here. At no time, no matter how persistent the stupidity of Tinos or Sacha, the idea that you can mix up a wave with the waves medium will not be changed by their stupidity. Likewise the idea that formulas can be used in the place of evidence can never take off either. Since formulas are merely approximations that are empirically based. They don’t represent anything more than that. Waves come in, waves disperse. We see that light is waves travelling through a medium. Light cannot be this and be particles, moving as if they were shot out of a cannon, at the same time.
December 27, 2009 at 8:45 am |
Since when has it been acceptable, reasonable, or scientific to confuse a wave, with the medium that wave moves through?
Lets have evidence for this acceptability? Lets have another example where a wave can be also, and at the same time, a series of particles shot out straight as if from a cannon.
I think we will find that there is no such example. And that any such a contention is in fact irrational.
December 27, 2009 at 9:18 am |
Graeme: Our careers, AGW and monetary policy are all irrelevant to the existence of photons.
Light does not need a medium, or at least there’s zero evidence of it needing one.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
The scattering formula does not work at all under orthogonal ropes theory. There is absolutely no way to derive it (that is, explain it) from your theory. If you want to be taken seriously, you must present such an explanation. See this for the standards I expect.
You’re just going to have to accept the fact that the universe is such that all waves are also particles.
Oh, and I’m glad I didn’t try posting on your blog, given your pro-censorship stance.
December 27, 2009 at 9:19 am |
Graeme
Please refrain from calling your scientific colleagues the c word. I don’t want to end up on Stephen Conroy’s filter. I suppose ‘bastards’ is OK.
December 27, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Why don’t you just force them to come up with evidence or wipe their idiocy? You do this all the time. You actively encourage spamming on the part of people who refuse to make good with the evidence.
Particles may well be involved with light. But not particles that themselves move at the speed of light from one galaxy to the next. Since this contradicts their wave motion. Waves moves through particles. Just like with sound. The waves move at the speed of sound. The particles of air do not.
Its pretty simple. So these guys are just lying.
And formulas are made with regards to empirical measurement. Hence they are quite independent of theoretical conjecture on these matters. And yet this lying bastard, who does not know what evidence is insists on replacing actual evidence with a formula. A formula meant to predict the way that waves scatter into other waves. You cannot get more dishonest than this. So put a stop to this nuisance. Tell this toadying sack of shit to come up with the evidence or admit he is wrong.
December 27, 2009 at 10:43 am |
“You’re just going to have to accept the fact that the universe is such that all waves are also particles.”
What an idiot. Everything he says is idiocy. Waves MOVE THROUGH particles or other medium. This fellow is a moron. He refers back to the theory under dispute as his only evidence. Exactly the same idiocy as the idiot Edney. He may as well be Edney. Our education system turns these idiots out like the central bank turns out new money.
December 27, 2009 at 10:44 am |
All waves are also particles. What a moronic thing to say. See that Tsunami that hit 5 years ago. Its a particle according to this irrational sack of shit.
December 27, 2009 at 10:45 am |
Its not as if I don’t know about the theory. All subatomic particles are supposed to have “wave functions”. The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong. If its a wave, it needs a medium. If its a particle it is no wave. Simple as that.
December 27, 2009 at 10:47 am |
Getting back to the model you showcased Jason. It is of course just a fantasy. But because it is a fantasy based on wrong priesthood theory it will be accepted as deep philosophy by all of these morons. Not one of these guys didn’t accept it as good work. This is because they are toadying dummies.
December 27, 2009 at 10:49 am |
Experiments observing C_60 (a molecule containing 60 carbon atoms – otherwise known as buckminsterfullerene or “buckyballs” – buckminster would have been pleased) behaving like a wave were reported in this Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/full/401680a0.html
December 27, 2009 at 10:59 am |
No I’m afraid that bucky-balls are not waves Sacha. And waves are not particles. You are just going to have to accept that reality.
Now consider the stupidity of using formulas as evidence. Newtons formulas imply no theory of gravity. Since Newton had no theory of what causes gravity. I may have a theory of gravity, yet Newton’s maths works very well for most large bodies in the solar system. Same with Einsteins maths. Works very well for the planets. No good for the satellites. But in neither case can the formulas, empirically based, be used to justify bad theory. In any case we see that neither sets of formulas works when describing the wider universe.
We must get this straight. Sacha. You are not claiming that a bucky-ball is a wave are you?
See this is what gets in the way of scientific enquiry. The dummies see something they don’t understand and instead of doing the hard yards to find out what is really going on they just make rubbish up that cannot be true. So a buckyball becomes a wave. Just because these people are too stupid to get out of the way and let someone discover what is actually going on.
December 27, 2009 at 11:07 am |
Read the paper.
December 27, 2009 at 11:13 am |
Here’s a pdf of the letter to Nature:
Click to access c60article.pdf
December 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
Whats the point of this. Find some evidence for photons or admit that you were wrong. There is no evidence here. And bucky balls are not waves. What an idiot you are Sacha.
December 27, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
Let me get this straight. You are not claiming that bucky balls are waves are you Sacha? If not what is your point? Are you claiming that waves move THROUGH bucky-balls? You don’t even know do you.
You see you are just being a bastard. You are throwing a wild goose chase out when you know you don’t have any evidence for any relevant specific hypothesis. This is what being a public servant does to you. It turns you into a blockhead.
December 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
You won’t say what you hypothesis is specifically. And you won’t tie specific evidence for a specific hypothesis. Evidence doesn’t just hang there in the air Sacha. It is only evidence in relation to a specific hypothesis.
December 27, 2009 at 9:29 pm |
Sacha
Nice paper! It’s too bad the slits weren’t straight enough to get the wings on the graph. At first I thought it’d just be the velocity distribution, but they took that into account. Actually, since there were a variety of de Broglie wavelengths, it shows that each C60 molecule was interfering with itself.
Graeme
Particle motion does not contradict wave motion. We know from experiments that light is both! It is just like with sound, which itself is made of phonons that move at the speed of sound.
Also, Einstein’s theory of gravity works perfectly for all satellites. And Newton did invent the first precise theory of gravity. And the C60 molecules, like all particles, are waves. And Sacha did present the evidence for the buckyballs being waves, the graph in that paper!
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
The scattering formula is not made from empirical measurement. It is made from assuming photons exist, and it accurately predicts empirical measurements. It cannot be explained in any other way, therefore photons exist.
December 27, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Partlicle motion does indeed contradict wave motion IF THE PARTICLE IS HELD TO BE MOVING AS FAST AS THE WAVES IN OPEN SPACE.
Particle motion may move at the same speed or even faster on the rebound only. This absolute fact doesn’t rule out particles but it rules out photons in absolutist terms. Now get it right you goddamned idiot.
I want to ring your neck because you have tossed reason out the window and are relying on authority alone. This is repetitively rude. You ought to be subject to euthanasia over this repetitive idiocy. The first time was bad enough.
December 27, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
“ambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
The scattering formula is not made from empirical measurement. ”
Yet another lie.
December 28, 2009 at 12:00 am |
Just stop talking about it Tinos if you are going to be a complete asshole and lie all the time. You are not coming up with evidence. You are belligerently refusing to do so. So stop typing. Its fucking rude for one thing. What an asshole you are.
December 28, 2009 at 12:43 am |
Graeme:
We know from experiments that
a) Light travels as waves, &
b) Light travels as particles
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
As can be seen in this derivation the scattering formula is made by the photons assumption, not a bunch of data. It is impossible to explain it without photons.
Only make one post at a time, Graeme. It will force you to think carefully about what you’re saying, and the logic you’re using. So far you’ve just rattled off everything that’s entered your head.
December 28, 2009 at 1:12 am |
You are extremely patient, Tinos.
December 28, 2009 at 1:51 am |
You are extremely idiotic Sacha. And you are wrong. And obviously so. This is because you think that reason no longer applies to science. In reality only reason applies and irrationality has no place in science.
“We know from experiments that
a) Light travels as waves, &
b) Light travels as particles”
No you are lying. Experiments tell us with total certainty that light travels as waves. Not as particles. And you are muddying the waters here also. Since we know that waves motion does indeed imply particle motion but NEVER at the same velocity, for extended distances, as the wave itself.
This is a logical necessity. Or else it wouldn’t be wave motion. There is no disputing me on this at all. What you are saying is a logical impossibility. Toadying assholes like you and Sacha are what is getting in the way of science.
Remember that science has now been taken over by public servants. With all the obstruction abuse and dysfunction that this implies.
December 28, 2009 at 1:55 am |
Let us suppose that you are right to this extent. Photons as advertised are a logical impossibility. But waves do have a medium and they may be particles. Or at least its not irrational for you to think so.
So we suppose you are right to this extent. That particles are involved and they manifest themselves where they hit and react with solid matter. This part of the story is not irrational. So if you are proposing that particles are involved for what distance are you claiming you can prove the particle travels, after hitting a solid object.
Remember don’t fucking lie. Tell me how far on the basis of experimental evidence. Not on the basis of your logically impossible bad theory and personal idiocy.
December 28, 2009 at 2:05 am |
Graeme, that paper gives experimental evidence that buckyballs behave like waves. Are you saying that the paper is wrong?
December 28, 2009 at 10:25 am |
What is the claim you are making? Are you claiming that Buckyballs are waves? I assure you that bucky-balls are not waves. Are you contesting me on this matter? Yes or no?
What do you think you have found evidence for? Specify the hypothesis. Evidence is not evidence but that it relates to a specific hypothesis.
December 28, 2009 at 10:33 am |
Read the paper. What do you think the paper says? Do you disagree with it? If so, what is the basis of your disagreement?
I’ll leave Tinos to assess your assessment of that paper. Bye Graeme, happy to correspond in the future of you have something to contribute. Ciao
December 28, 2009 at 10:42 pm |
Graeme, your whole objection is based on an incomplete definition of ‘wave’. You’ve arbitrarily decided to restrict yourself to the ‘mechanical wave’ definition, exemplified by ocean waves, and extrapolated that to all other kinds.
We are not arguing that light is a mechanical wave!
December 29, 2009 at 12:09 am |
Graeme, why don’t you just give it up? You are nothing but a hopeless fat, bald, loser with a crap job, no talent, little intellect, and a fundamentally ridiculous view of the world.
You are a joke and a bum from some garbage little country who has achieved nothing, will never amount to anything, who buys into whatever stupid conspiracy theory happens to be doing the rounds, and you clearly have some fairly serious mental-health issues.
In view of your pretty evident anger-management problems, I have to ask do you beat your wife?
December 29, 2009 at 4:48 am |
Lets not get sidetracked sacha. What are you claiming? What is your claim specifically. I’m out there with what I’m claiming. I’m claiming that buckyballs are not waves. What are you claiming? See you won’t say will you since you are a dope. And you are dishonest. And no smart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ocean waves aren’t mechanical waves either. Depending on what you mean by “mechanical.”
It does not good to have a make-believe understanding of waves. We know light is made of waves Jarrah. Light isn’t made up of pretend waves. Or voodoo waves. They are made of waves. They have a wavelength that can be measured. Their wave nature can be proven very easily.
What is your new definition of waves? Can you not call this new definition something else? Call it ahhhhhh Frosties. Its not waves its “frosties” just so you don’t get confused.
Because light is just waves. There is no mystery about the waves that are light. There is controversy over what the medium is.
I don’t what you new definition of waves is. But it doesn’t apply to light. Because light is the same old stuff. The same old waves.
December 29, 2009 at 4:52 am |
“Their wave nature can be proven very easily.”
Go on then. Prove it. Where’s your evidence?
“There is controversy over what the medium is.”
Why do you need a medium?
December 29, 2009 at 4:57 am |
“Read the paper. What do you think the paper says? Do you disagree with it? If so, what is the basis of your disagreement?”
Don’t waste time on stuff that is not relevant. Buckyballs are these incredibly amazing molecules in a substance made of pure carbon atoms. As you said C60. They are big fat molecules. Selfcontained as it were. Only carbon could form such a pleasing shape. It being such an amazing element.
We know what buckballs are. And they are not waves. So are you claiming they are waves or not? We go back a little bit Sacha. And I happen to know that whenever you are proven wrong you do one of two things.
1. You attempt the switcheroo, adopt my point of view without telling me, and pretend that I had some other point of view. This happened several times.
2. You filibuster and try and send people on wild goose chases. And generally change the subject.
Obviously right now its number 2. And you will never overcome your chronic cretinism unless you get over these dysfunctional behaviour patterns.
December 29, 2009 at 5:44 am |
Graeme
The paper proves that every buckyball is a wave (or at least, that they all behave is if they were waves). Read it. Are you saying the paper is wrong?
Before you said you understood quantum physics. I’m skeptical. Here is a typical first year physics question:
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Can you answer it?
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
You still need to explain the diffraction formula. If you can’t explain it you must accept that light is made of photons.
December 29, 2009 at 8:39 am |
No the paper doesn’t prove that buckyballs are waves. Waves are waves. And buckyballs are buckyballs.
And clearly something is very wrong in the public service. Now you have claimed that buckyballs are waves. But we already knew you were powerfully idiotic.
But I want to see Sacha make that same claim. I would like to see Sacha commit on this matter. Sacha. Are bucky balls waves? Yes or no?
December 29, 2009 at 8:41 am |
“Before you said you understood quantum physics.”
No I did not say it quite like that. Probably I said that I understand quantum physics to be wrong and idiotic. I’ll believe that. But its your story. Tell me something I can believe for once.
December 29, 2009 at 9:08 am |
“lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
You still need to explain the diffraction formula.”
No I don’t. Its an empirically derived formula. Waves come in waves come out. Evidence for waves and evidence for their medium. If you are claiming that you have found evidence for PARTICLES (not photons) close in and out of where the meeting of light and solid matter (including all our measuring equipment) is involved, well that fine, normal, and according to Hoyles.
But what you, Edney, Jarrah, and Sacha are after is to get me to agree that REASON is no longer what science is about. This is a lie. And its getting in the way of scientific progress.l
I happen to be fairly sure that the particles are not particles. But rather “ropes” but that is neither here nor there. What we can say for sure is though there may be particles in this story there are no photons. Here I define photons is particles WHICH THEMSELVES move along with the wave.
This is physically impossible and irrational.
So what you need to do, if you wish to maintain your irrational beliefs, is not to show that particles are involved. Particles are involved with every form of wave motion we are aware of for sure. I think its orthogonal ropes involved. But if you say its particles, then thats not NECESSARILY irrational.
You proving that particles are involved is not the ticket.
Your job is to prove that the particles move WITH THE WAVE through open space ….. Rather than the normal wave motion. Wherein the wave moves THROUGH the particles …. and while the particles move. They don’t move at the velocity of the wave itself. ………
EXCEPT FOR A SPLIT SECOND.
Thats the point here.
You see there was no reason to bring irrationality into this story. There just wasn’t. And while it is true that the particles of the medium that the wave is moving through, for the tiniest moment in time and space, might move at the speed of the wave itself, they do not do so for MORE THAN THE TINIEST MOMENT.
They don’t.
Anyone who says they do is lying or stupid. And you don’t have the evidence.
Lets go over it again. We not looking for the evidence for particles. Every wave-medium we know of so far involves particles.
We were looking for evidence for photons.
And you don’t have any.
Because you are a stupid cunt.
December 29, 2009 at 9:58 am |
BirdLab
He has a wife?!
Graeme
1.
The paper shows that buckyballs are waves. Precisely why, in your opinion, is the paper wrong?
2.
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you haven’t an even elementary knowledge of quantum theory. I admit, though, that you didn’t claim to understand quantum.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This is derived from the photons postulate, and verified empirically. The empirical derivation of the formula (by, say, trial & error) is in no way evidence for or explained by your theory. It can’t be predicted without the photons assumption. Therefore photons exist. You must accept this.
4.
Make only one post at a time, so that you think carefully about what you say.
December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
So still no evidence for photons you complete cunt.
You haven’t even so much as come up with evidence for particles. But as explained often, thats not your job. Your job is to come up with evidence for PHOTONS. Particles that defy all that we know about wave motions.
GO!!!!
December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
For fucksakes Jason? This fuckhead is like Fyodor and Reynolds combined????
How long are you going to let him keep going as an evidence free zone? Tell him to come up with something or block his science-mystic ass.
December 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
So far no evidence from anyone for photons. None at all. And certainly no evidence for this embarrassing toadying to yet another ludicrous physics model. The message has to get around that the physicists are delinquent. Thats never going to happen if people buy into every irrational thing that they say.
December 29, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
No justifying the embarrassing toadying is what I meant. Now its not enough to bring evidence for particles remember. It has to be evidence for photons. Which are held to travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years, without any reason for them to do so.
December 29, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
I’m sure the rest of you want to hear about Jarrah’s new wave theory. Waves that aren’t waves. So why is he still calling them waves if they aren’t waves?
Bad theology.
December 29, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
“He has a wife?!”
So he claims, Tinos. But given his marginal grasp on reality I suspect the ‘wife’ may actually be a hamster or some other unfortunate imprisoned furry woodland creature.
December 30, 2009 at 1:06 am |
Honestly Tinos, this bloke is such an embarassment that he can’t explain why photons, if they don’t exist, are being used in practical everyday technological applications even as we speak.
What a fool. What a maroon.
But should we expect any less from a cretin who purchases shares on his credit card, rips the copper wiring from his house, or whose views on matters scientific are apparently based on the movie Plan 9 From Outer Space?
No. This is why his views are never to be taken seriously and why he should be treated with mocking condescension at all times.
December 30, 2009 at 2:06 am |
Graeme
1.
This paper shows that buckyballs are waves. Precisely why, in your opinion, is the paper wrong?
2.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong.”
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This is derived from the photons postulate, and verified empirically. It can’t be predicted without photons. Therefore photons exist. You must accept this as irrefutable evidence for photons.
4.
Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.
5.
Make only one post at a time, so that you think carefully about what you say.
December 30, 2009 at 5:39 am |
1.
This paper shows that buckyballs are waves. Precisely why, in your opinion, is the paper wrong?
THE PAPER DOES NOT EVEN CLAIM TO SAY THAT BUCKYBALLS ARE WAVES. YOU ARE LYING.
2.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong.”
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
I’LL NOT BE DRAWN INTO BULLSHIT TESTS BY IDIOTS. QUANTUM THEORY IS TOTALLY WRONG. HENCE ITS NOT POWERFULLY IMPORTANT TO BECOME A WORLD AUTHORITY ON IT. THIS IS LIKE EXPECTING ME TO BECOME A QUALIFIED CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY “AUDITOR” BEFORE I CAN EXPRESS SKEPTICISM, AS TO THE SCIENTIFIC VERACITY OF L.RON.HUBBARDS PSYCOLOGICAL SYSTEM.
I TEST PARADIGMS FOR THEIR PLAUSIBILITY FROM THE OUTSIDE. THIS DOES NOT, NOR EVER DID, REQUIRE HAVING TO LEARN THESE PARADIGMS INSIDE OUT. IF I WAS CHECKING OUT THE LOCAL MEDICINE MAN AND AUDITING HIS SYSTEM, THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE ME TO BE A QUALIFIED ADEPT IN THE HIGHER AFRICAN VOODOO.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This is derived from the photons postulate,
NO ITS NOT. ITS DERIVED EMPIRICALLY. THE POSTULATE IS MADE. BUT THE FORMULA IS DERIVED EMPIRICALLY. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING A TROGAN HORSE. WE ACCEPT THE HORSE BUT WOULD CARE LESS FOR THE GREEKS INSIDE. THE POSTULATE IS MADE. THE EXPERIMENTS MAY IMPLY PARTICLE INVOLVEMENT BUT THATS DOUBTFUL. BUT IN ANY CASE THE GREEKS IN THIS TROJAN HORSE IS THE IDEA THAT THE PARTICLES MOVE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT THROUGH LONG DISTANCES OF OPEN SPACE. THIS IS A LIE. THERE IS NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP. THAT SOME PART OF AN EXPERIMENT MAY IMPLY PARTICLES IS NOT SURPRISING SIMPLY BECAUSE WAVES MOVE THROUGH PARTICLES USUALLY. AND THE PARTICLES THEMSELVES ALSO MOVE, AND POSSIBLY A GREAT DEAL FASTER THAN THE WAVE ITSELF. BUT ONLY FOR LIMITED DISTANCES. YOU CANNOT HAVE THE MEDIUM MOVING IN AT AN EXTENDED LIKE VELOCITY TO THE WAVE. OR ELSE THE MOVEMENT WOULD NOT BE A WAVE IT WOULD BE A VOLLEY.
and verified empirically.
A TOTAL LIE. THE FORMULA IS VERIFIED AS AN EMPIRICAL APPROXIMATION BETWEEN BOUNDARIES. ITS JUST SHORTHAND SO WE DON’T NEED TO GO TO TABLES.
It can’t be predicted without photons.
YOU ARE LYING. YOU MAY BRING EVIDENCE THAT THE FORMULA IMPLIES A MEDIUM MADE OF PARTICLES. IF YOU WANT TO CALL ORTHOGONAL ROPES PARTICLES. BUT NO EXPERIMENT EVER, AND CERTAINLY NO FORMULA, HAS EVER BROUGHT FORTH EVEN SO MUCH AS A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PHOTON RIGHTLY DEFINED. THERE MAY BE PARTICLES INVOLVED. THERE IS DEFINITELY NOT ANY PHOTONS IN THIS STORY.
Therefore photons exist.
NO THEY DON’T. YOU ARE LYING AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.
You must accept this as irrefutable evidence for photons.
YOU HAVE NOT COME UP WITH EVEN THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS YOU ARE LYING.
ACTUALLY YOU HAVE COME UP WITH EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY THESIS. SINCE IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS, YOU WOULD SURELY HAVE COME GOOD WITH IT. THAT YOU HAVE NOT IMPLIES THAT ITS NOT THERE.
ONCE AGAIN FOR THE VERY STUPID. EVIDENCE OF THE MEDIUM IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS. PHOTONS ARE NOT MERELY PARTICLES. THE NOTION OF THE PHOTON DEFIES WAVE MOTION. SINCE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE WAVE MOTION THE PHOTON IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. PARTICLES ARE NOT A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. BUT PHOTONS, RIGHTLY DEFINED, ARE.
4.
Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.
NO THEY DON’T. YOU ARE LYING. LIGHT TRAVELS FOR MANY TENS OF MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS YES. BUT PARTICLES DON’T NORMALLY TRAVEL ALL THE WAY WITH THAT LIGHT. AND ANY PARTICLES THAT WOULD DO SO COULD NEVER BE PART OF THE LIGHT ITSELF. SINCE THIS IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY THAT WOULD DEFY WAVE MOTION.
5.
Make only one post at a time, so that you think carefully about what you say.
I DON’T NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT I’M SAYING. SINCE THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT STUFF. YOUR POSITION IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. AND YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.
December 30, 2009 at 8:33 am |
“Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.”
I want people to try and think to themselves what an incredibly nonsensical and speculative statement this is.
We get information from a long long way away. This information is moving faster than we can possibly keep up with. There is no direct evidence in this story for how far away the light is coming from, how long its been travelling, how large the item we seem to be seeing was, whether this item is moving towards us or away from us. Nothing direct in the first instance. Nothing direct. Everything must be inferred.
Everything must be inferred with THEORY! With theory. With theory, that should we contest it, we assuming this theory, is either wrong, or yet to be confirmed.
“Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.”
Doesn’t everyone see the stupidity of this? We cannot travel right next to this light. Supposing we could travel next to it? Go back in time, bear witness to the conditions of the lights source, and set out on the journey with the light. Supposing we could do this and could check to make sure of various things. Supposing our instruments were real good and we confirmed that the light was indeed made of spherical particles.
Actually its not. Strong convergent evidence tells us that the light amounts to a collection of torsion waves running along orthogonal ropes.
But nonetheless the idea that particles are involved is a reasonable thesis.
So we set off from the source, bearing in mind out quest is one we must devote a hundred million years to. And as we travel next to the wave front we somehow verify that the particles, each one identical to every other in many respects, are the same ones we started out with. What magnificent equipment we would need to ride next to the wave front? What magnificent equipment we would need. There we are checking the particles with a suspicious eye towards particle turnover and substitution.
“Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.”
The claim is just outrageous. The claim is risible and offensive all at once, with a percentage division between risible and offensive, changing all the time with ones mood and moodiness.
Where is this bullshit coming from? I know what the stupid say about this! They say that the photon (which doesn’t exist by the way) has a resting mass of zero.
Oh Lord how long? When will the fantasies end and the science begin? If something has a rest mass of zero its mass must ipso facto stay zero no matter what the condition, velocity or acceleration. Hence there would be no light speed limit for such an entity if there were a source of acceleration that itself could function at superluminal speeds. And a particle with a rest mass of zero could not in fact convey momentum. Its hard to see how it could transport energy. One is tempted to say that under no circumstances could it do so. But I won’t quite go that far for now.
What does it mean to have a resting mass of zero? When did anyone see a photon that wasn’t moving? When did anyone ask the unmoving photon to jump on the scales?
Do you see the unscience of this tosh? This is imbecility, and not even airbrushed. By their own admission these loony toons reckon this make-believe entity, the photon, gets created ex-nihilo, and then always, without exception, feels the need, for no apparent reason, to bugger off from its birth-place, without motivation, at the speed of light, if it so much as has the chance unobstructed.
But why would it do so? What drives its oddball behaviour? Actions only take place for a reason. Luckily this observation is not proved wrong by the existence of light. Because photons don’t exist and none of this irrational bullshitartistry is true.
A resting mass of zero? For a particle which, by the fantasists own admission is never at rest?
You can see right there that empirical evidence is not a big part of this story.
“not a big part”
Sometimes I use understatement for effect.
“Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.”
Conservation of mass and energy (a “law” that does not always hold by the way) requires outright that light must lose wavelength as it travels across space. Since we know that the speed of light is, for the most part, invariant in space, and we also know that short-wavelength light is more energetic than long-wavelength light, it follows directly that light will red shift as it travels through space.
Here we have a massive clue as to the nature of the lights medium. Yes it is true that the light redshifts over time and distance. But evidence seems to suggest that the red shift of this light is smaller than what one might imagine from analogy to other forms of wave motion.
Right there we have a situation that one speaks about when one says “He’s got his work cut out for him” Right there we have the research project on wave behaviour in the general to figure what is going on with this wave behavior in the specific.
You see if we had SCIENTISTS. Rather than science workers, lying dogs and public servants, then we would have people who would ruthlessly track down the clue like the most motivated sleuths, when such an obvious lead is given to them. That light travels so far, and for so long, without much in the way of red shift, tells us an immense amount about the nature of the medium.
Or it would do.
If we only had people who were willing to follow the clues up.
December 30, 2009 at 9:05 pm |
“Supposing our instruments were real good and we confirmed that the light was indeed made of spherical particles.”
See what I mean, Tinos? At least you can get a laugh out of this.
What about the photoelectric effect, Graeme? That can’t be explained by smoothly variable waves. That’s the whole reason anyone even thought that light wasn’t just a wave.
Wait…do you accept the existence of electrons?
December 31, 2009 at 12:12 am |
Tinos, what you have to realise is that Graeme’s views on phyics derives mainly another deranged lunatic who goes by the name of Bill Gaedes.
To get a clearer picture of what’s actually going on in Bird’s head, you need only to visit Gaedes’ website here:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
He also happens to believe that we are the last generation of humans on earth, BTW, another crock that Birdbrain has bought into lock, stock and barrell. So, you know, pretty credible source of knowledge.
December 31, 2009 at 6:06 am |
There is no evidence for PHOTONS in the photo-electric effect. NONE. Because photons aren’t merely particles. Photons don’t exist, but as a concept they aren’t merely THE MEDIUM. They are little balls of something, that get created ex-nihilo, and don’t like where they are now.
They don’t like where they are now, in this stupid view of things, so they decide to hotfoot it somewhere else. They decide to hotfoot it somewhere else very fast. Faster than most anything else around.
Nothing in the photo-electric effect proves the existence of these PHOTONS. You might, if you try hard, find some evidence for PARTICLES in the photo-electric effect. Just like you might find evidence for water molecules in the sea-spray effect.
I don’t think you will find evidence for PARTICLES in the photo-electric effect. You might do. But I don’t think you will.
But I know for a fact that you won’t find evidence for PHOTONS, in the photo-electric effect.
And Jarrah. If photons aren’t spherical what are they. They don’t exist. This is your bullshit story. But if you are saying they are not spherical then what shape are they?
Anything that exists that isn’t space, or merely a concept, has some sort of shape. If its an object it has shape. If it doesn’t have shape its space or its a concept or it doesn’t exist.
December 31, 2009 at 6:25 am |
Funnily enough Jarrah, you have furnished me with an example that we may think of as “proto-wave-movement” We have something of a partial wave. A poorly formed wave, or a microwave (no relation) moving through a medium.
You appeared to be putting forth this example in support of your adherence to the idea that mass and energy are conserved. The idea of the conservation of energy is a good and valuable concept for most terrestrial applications. But we cannot prove that it always applies where gravity is concerned.
Anyway you sent me this excellent visual example. Unfortunately you sent me this excellent visual example in support of the wrong concept.
Here is the excellent visual.
Already we have a proto-wave. in this story. Now note. When the wave is moving through the balls, the balls themselves are constrained NOT TO MOVE with the wave for any great distance.
But notice when the medium runs out and makes contact with something that isn’t the medium (in this case dead air) THEN the medium and the wave can move together in something pretty close to the same velocity.
Consider that all our measuring equipment involves the wave medium ending, and coming upon something that does not constitute the lights medium.
This is another way of saying the light interacts with a solid object, live a wave crashing on the rocks and creating sea-spray. It may be ironic. But all our attempts to measure light prejudice our understanding of it once we get the dopey idea of the PHOTON lodged in our head.
Lets look at that animation again.
1. THE MIDDLE THREE BALLS REPRESENT LIGHT AS A WAVE.
2. THE OUTER TWO BALLS REPRESENT THE WAY THAT LIGHT MAY APPEAR TO THE STUPID TO BE A PARTICLE.
December 31, 2009 at 7:49 am |
The idiot Jarrah wants particles to be real and make believe at the same time.
He wants there to be waves that aren’t waves. If they aren’t waves and you call them waves you are lying. But Jarrah wants waves to be non-waves, but to call them waves, but then say they aren’t real waves. Not ‘MECHANICAL” waves.
Jarrah is such an idiot he wants there to be particles. He says they are real. But if they are real why don’t they have shape. They are real Jarrah insists. He is lying. But if they are real then what shape are there?
I SEZ:
“Supposing our instruments were real good and we confirmed that the light was indeed made of spherical particles.”
THE IDIOT JARRAH JOB SEZ:
“See what I mean, Tinos? At least you can get a laugh out of this.”
BUT WHAT EXACTLY IS THE IDIOT JARRAH JOB SAYING?
I wasn’t the fuckwit that claimed that there were small spherical particles called PHOTONS. I said that they don’t exist. If they don’t have shape they do not exist.
Lets make it clear. Its not me saying that spherical photons exist. Its Jarrah.
Or is Jarrah saying that PHOTONS aren’t spherical?
I say they aren’t spherical because I say they don’t exist. But if Jarrah claims that the PHOTONS do exist, and are not spherical, then what shape is this lying cunt saying that photons are?
December 31, 2009 at 7:50 am |
These make-believe photons you believe in Jarrah? You know? Your special friends?
What fucking shape are they you complete fucking moron.
December 31, 2009 at 7:56 am |
The upshot of all this is that rampant irrationality is in science proper, and in the science toady’s.
But irrationality is not acceptable in science. We should look askance at irrationality as a general rule. But in science irrationality is not the least bit acceptable. Yet irrationality is rampant in science today.
January 1, 2010 at 4:40 am |
Graeme
1.
From The paper:
“Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules…”
In other words, they experimentally demonstrated that buckyballs are waves. How else can their buckyball distribution graph be predicted?
2.
If the proponents of a theory invite the public to critically analyse their beliefs, then either you must do so or cite someone who has before declaring the theory wrong. Scientologists offer no such invitation. Also, my question requires only a high school level knowledge of maths & physics (and the ability to Google), not that you be a world authority on quantum physics.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong” and you also said “…this is not difficult stuff”.
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Look at the derivation of the scattering formula. Note the use of the word “photon”. This means photons are necessary to explain Compton scattering, unless you can derive it in some other way (I’m pretty sure you can’t). You must accept the existence of photons.
4.
A wave being a particle is a logical possibility. There’s nothing illogical about quantum physics. It just assumes axioms different to your own.
5.
No one said photons are spherical. Not only do photons not have shape, nothing in the universe has an exact shape, since all particles are waves. That’s just the way it is. Your axiom is wrong.
6.
No evidence suggests light is running along ropes. Give me a precise formula that is predicted from the rope theory, and cite its experimental verification. Ditto for your sea spray theory. Otherwise accept that both theories are wrong.
7.
I partially agree with you on the photon mass thing. Saying a photon has zero rest mass is a mathematical simplification, but I don’t see how it provides any insight into nature, since photons are never stationary. I’ve never studied advanced physics, so someone might want to correct me on that.
8.
Again, photons are not created out of nothing. You’re ignoring conservation laws.
9.
Mass & energy are always conserved. This principle is compatible with all available evidence and makes many different kinds of correct predictions. The principle is also falsifiable.
10.
Your redshift theory is illogical. Why would energy conservation imply naturally lengthening wavelength?
11.
I’m sure there are Birds who support mainstream science, and you’re right to attack them. Firstly, you’re really only attacking yourself. And secondly, their opinions reflect rather than define mainstream physics.
12.
“evidence seems to suggest that the red shift of this light is smaller than what one might imagine from analogy to other forms of wave motion”
Can you please explain this mathematically, and cite empirical observation?
13.
The photoelectric effect also proves photons exist since there’s no other way to explain the threshold frequencies and work functions of metals. To counter this you would have to provide a mathematical theory which predicts a threshold frequency.
14.
Remember, one post at a time.
15.
Graeme, the best thing you could do right now is go read a high-school level maths textbook. The knowledge itself is useful, but more importantly your brain desperately needs training in valid logic.
January 1, 2010 at 6:05 am |
WHAT AN IDIOT TINOS IS.
1.
From The paper:
“Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules…”
In other words, they experimentally demonstrated that buckyballs are waves. How else can their buckyball distribution graph be predicted?
YOU ARE LYING ON TWO COUNTS. BUCKYBALLS ARE NOT WAVES. THE PAPER DOES NOT CLAIM THAT BUCKYBALLS ARE WAVES. LIES DON’T COUNT. WAVES ARE NOT OBJECTS. THEY MOVE THROUGH OBJECTS.
2.
If the proponents of a theory invite the public to critically analyse their beliefs, then either you must do so or cite someone who has before declaring the theory wrong. Scientologists offer no such invitation. Also, my question requires only a high school level knowledge of maths & physics (and the ability to Google), not that you be a world authority on quantum physics.
NO THATS IDIOCY. IDEAS CAN BE WRONG. CITING PEOPLE IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. CLEARLY YOU ARE A STUPID CUNT.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong” and you also said “…this is not difficult stuff”.
YES THATS TRUE. THIS IS BAD THEORY.
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
A BUCKYBALL IS NOT A WAVE. YOU HAVEN’T EVEN MADE CLEAR WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING. IS THE OBJECT GYRATING? YOU WON’T SAY. IF THE OBJECT IS GYRATING THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT A WAVE IS NOT WHAT SOMETHING IS. IT IS WHAT SOMETHING DOES. YOU WANT IT BOTH WAYS.
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
QUANTUM THEORY IS BAD THEORY. BUT THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE. YOU ARE A COMPLETE CUNT WHO HAS NOT COME UP WITH EVEN A TINY BIT OF EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Look at the derivation of the scattering formula. Note the use of the word “photon”. This means photons are necessary to explain Compton scattering, unless you can derive it in some other way (I’m pretty sure you can’t). You must accept the existence of photons.
NO YOU ARE LYING. YOU HAVE COME UP WITH NO EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS. YOU ARE A LYING CUNT. I WAS EXPECTING YOU TO COME UP WITH EVIDENCE FOR PARTICLES. YOU HAVEN’T EVEN DONE THAT YOU LYING CUNT.
4.
A wave being a particle is a logical possibility. There’s nothing illogical about quantum physics. It just assumes axioms different to your own.
NO NO. A PARTICLE IS AN OBJECT. A WAVE IS A MOVEMENT THROUGH OBJECTS. YOUR LOGIC IS WRONG. CLEARLY YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.
5.
No one said photons are spherical. Not only do photons not have shape, nothing in the universe has an exact shape, since all particles are waves. That’s just the way it is. Your axiom is wrong.
PHOTONS ARE NOT SPHERICAL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. IF THEY EXIST THEY HAVE SHAPE. YOU SAY THEY EXIST. WHAT SHAPE ARE THEY? YOU ARE A LYING CUNT.
6.
No evidence suggests light is running along ropes. Give me a precise formula that is predicted from the rope theory, and cite its experimental verification. Ditto for your sea spray theory. Otherwise accept that both theories are wrong.
ALL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS LIGHT IS TORSION ALONG ROPES. NONE EXISTS THAT LIGHT IS A VOLLEY OF PARTICLES. NOT LETS NOT GO DOWN THAT PATH UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU FIND EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS.
7.
I partially agree with you on the photon mass thing. Saying a photon has zero rest mass is a mathematical simplification, but I don’t see how it provides any insight into nature, since photons are never stationary. I’ve never studied advanced physics, so someone might want to correct me on that.
WELL THATS FINE. BUT ACADEMIC. SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PHOTONS.
8.
Again, photons are not created out of nothing. You’re ignoring conservation laws.
PHOTONS DON’T EXIST. THEY ARE HELD TO BE CREATED OUT OF NOTHING. THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN. THAT IS YOUR CLAIM NOT MINE.
9.
Mass & energy are always conserved. This principle is compatible with all available evidence and makes many different kinds of correct predictions. The principle is also falsifiable.
THIS IS UNTENABLE. SINCE THE MASS AND THE ENERGY ARE HERE. MEANING THEY HAVE TO BE CAPABLE OF CREATION. YOU LOSE ON LOGICAL GROUNDS. AND BEING A BIG BANG BELIEVER YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD BE RIGHT IS IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN HERE FOREVER, AND WITH ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME MASS AND ENERGY THAT IT HAS NOW. THIS IS NOT YOUR POSITION AND SO YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
10.
Your redshift theory is illogical. Why would energy conservation imply naturally lengthening wavelength?
IT MUST IMPLY THIS. SINCE THE LIGHT IMPULSE TRAVELS ACROSS SPACE, THROUGH ELECTRONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN SPACE. A TORSION WAVE ACROSS ROPES MUST EVENTUALLY LOSE ITS POWER.
11.
I’m sure there are Birds who support mainstream science, and you’re right to attack them. Firstly, you’re really only attacking yourself. And secondly, their opinions reflect rather than define mainstream physics.
A MEANINGLESS STATEMENT. CONCENTRATE ON LOGIC AND EVIDENCE. SO FAR YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND YOU ARE RELENTLESSLY BEING IRRATIONAL.
12.
“evidence seems to suggest that the red shift of this light is smaller than what one might imagine from analogy to other forms of wave motion”
Can you please explain this mathematically, and cite empirical observation?
OF COURSE NOT. YOU CANNOT TRAVEL NEXT TO THE WAVE AFTER SURVEYING ITS SOURCE. NO DIRECT EVIDENCE EXISTS EITHER WAY. BUT THE HUBBLE DOCTRINE IS CLEARLY WRONG.
13.
The photoelectric effect also proves photons exist since there’s no other way to explain the threshold frequencies and work functions of metals. To counter this you would have to provide a mathematical theory which predicts a threshold frequency.
NO YOU ARE LYING. I DEALT WITH THAT WITH JARRAH. AND YOU HAVEN’T COME UP WITH ANYTHING NEW. THAT THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT PROVES PHOTONS IS NOT EVIDENCE. ITS A MANTRA. IT MAKES NO SENSE. REMEMBER A PHOTON IS NOT MERELY A PARTICLE. A PHOTON IS A CONCEPT THAT MAKES NO SENSE. WHEREIN A PARTICLE IS CREATED EX-NIHILO AND BUGGERS OFF FROM ITS CREATION SITE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
14.
Remember, one post at a time.
I’LL DO WHAT I WANT YOU IRRATIONAL LYING CUNT.
15.
Graeme, the best thing you could do right now is go read a high-school level maths textbook. The knowledge itself is useful, but more importantly your brain desperately needs training in valid logic.
MY LOGIC IS SOUND. YOURS IS NOT. YOU ARE AN ILLOGICAL TOADYING IDIOT.
January 1, 2010 at 6:14 am |
The general public must be totally intolerant of this. The general public must realise that irrationality is not OK from any of the public servants. And that the physicists are not exempt.
Somehow by maths obscurantism, the cult of personality, and relentless propaganda, the physicists have made themselves exempt from logic and reason. This is not acceptable.
We need to clean house. Professor Hawking has no useful information. Leonard Susskind started off as a plumber. And to plumbing he should return.
January 1, 2010 at 6:26 am |
The two toadying sycophants here both have something in common. Though they cannot make a case for photons being part of the story of light, they probably could make something of a fist of finding reasonable arguments that particles are part of this story. But they haven’t done so. Particles, as distinguished from photons, being part of this story, is not something rendered utterly illogical by the fact of wave motion. I’ve tried to push them in this direction, in order to coax them to make actual reasoned argument. But they have not taken it up. Preferring only bluff.
I think they ought to make a fist of it for the sake of third parties. Someone like Jason ought to be able to listen to Tinos tentatively explaining why he believes that particles are involved. So far a point blank refusal to do even that. People ought to be angry. This story is being repeated in every high school and university in this country, and many around the world.
January 1, 2010 at 6:31 am |
Alright lets try Tinos on something else to see if he will choose logic.
Tinos. It is held that positively charged protons will repel eachother with great vigour if they are brought together. Like charges repelling. At the same time it is held that protons are packed relatively tightly together in the nucleus of the atom. Clearly both these fairytales cannot be true. Perhaps you have an explanation that will square that circle.
Tinos. It is held that electricity is the flow of electrons along a conductor. At the same time it is held that electrons revolve around the nucleus of the atom like planets around a star. Clearly this seems like a bit of a dubious matchup. Since it doesn’t tell us how the voltage could move the electrons along the wire and at the same time explain why they wouldn’t move along a non-conductor.
You want to try and explain these things.
January 1, 2010 at 7:24 am |
Graeme
Many of your responses were inadequate.
1.
From The paper:
“Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules…”
In other words, they experimentally demonstrated that buckyballs are waves. How else can their buckyball distribution graph be predicted?
2.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong” and you also said “…this is not difficult stuff”. My question requires only a high school level knowledge of maths & physics (and the ability to Google), not that you be a world authority on quantum physics.
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Look at the derivation of the scattering formula. Note the use of the word “photon”. This means photons are necessary to explain Compton scattering, unless you can derive it in some other way (I’m pretty sure you can’t). You must accept the existence of photons.
4.
A wave being a particle is a logical possibility. There’s nothing illogical about quantum physics. It just assumes axioms different to your own.
5.
Not only do photons not have shape, nothing in the universe has an exact shape, since all particles are waves. Your axiom that all objects have a shape is wrong.
6.
No evidence suggests light is running along ropes. Give me a precise formula that is predicted from the rope theory, and cite its experimental verification. Ditto for your sea spray theory. Otherwise accept that both theories are wrong.
7.
Photons are not created out of nothing. Energy & momentum are always conserved.
8.
Mass & energy are always conserved. This principle is compatible with all available evidence and makes many different kinds of correct predictions. The principle is also falsifiable. If the Big Bang theory violates this principle, then the Big Bang theory is wrong.
9.
Your redshift theory is invalid. Energy conservation does not naturally lengthen wavelength. Most of the light does not run into anything. Furthermore energy varying inversely with wavelength only makes sense if you accept that photons exist.
10.
The photoelectric effect also proves photons exist since there’s no other way to explain the threshold frequencies and work functions of metals. To counter this you would have to provide a mathematical theory which predicts a threshold frequency.
11.
I don’t have to answer irrelevant questions to prove photons exist. I’ve already proven they exist (see point 3).
12.
The nuclear force holds together a nucleus.
13.
“it is held that electrons revolve around the nucleus of the atom like planets around a star”
Nope.
Solid state physics is far from perfect, but insulators etc are explained with band structure models.
14.
Make only one post at a time.
15.
Go read a high school maths textbook.
January 1, 2010 at 7:31 am |
Look I went over all those before. I’m not going to get into this in a big way until you come up with some evidence for photons. You could warm up for this impossible task by fleshing out some evidence for particles in this story. The evidence is not likely to be powerfully effective. But if you are a believer, then you would think you would be able to come up with something.
January 1, 2010 at 7:54 am |
People must realise that if these physics toady’s reckon that space can be shapeless and warped, that a wave can be a wave an a particle at the same time, that light can move in waves and via a volley of photons, and all this contradictory bullshit, that they can neither prove nor formulate theory.
Once you let contradictions into your theory you are lost at sea. Leaving you the only choice of clinging to the life raft of “consensus.” A totally unscientific idea.
January 1, 2010 at 10:50 am |
“If photons aren’t spherical what are they.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
January 1, 2010 at 10:55 am |
“or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.”
Tinos, the Turkey doesn’t believe in quantum theory.
“The photoelectric effect also proves photons exist since there’s no other way to explain the threshold frequencies and work functions of metals.”
The Turkey doesn’t care – if there is no theory (apart from quanta) that can explain it, we simply haven’t found the right theory yet.
Also, there is clearly a shortage of spherical particles.
January 1, 2010 at 8:02 pm |
Jarrah. Explain how the photo-electric effect proves
1. Particles first
THAN
2. Explain how the photo-electric effect proves PHOTONS.
You see the last time you didn’t even get to stage one. And you may well get to stage one. You are a liar if you think you are getting to stage 2.
Its not evidence its a fucking mantra. Do you get the difference you blockhead? You have evidence. And then you have mantras. I’ve heard this alleged proof so many times I’m sick of it. But you make further enquiries asking them to EXPLAIN why the mantra is evidence, all you get is assholes like yourself trying on evidence-by-smugness.
Stop spamming if you’ve got nothing. Its not OK just to repeat a mantra when you have no evidence.
January 1, 2010 at 8:03 pm |
Photons don’t exist. But you say they do Jarrah. What shape are they?
You are dummy and I blame your mother. You meet a stupid kid and supposing you were to follow the stupid kid home. You are likely to find a very stupid Mother.
January 1, 2010 at 8:09 pm |
LETS GO AGAIN
Photons do not exist. But you claim they do exist. What shape are they?
((((((“If photons aren’t spherical what are they.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)))))))
Thats what you said last time. See you are just an idiot. And I blame your mother. So far you have said that light waves are different from all other waves in that they are not “mechanical”. An idiotic idea. And because your Mother is stupid you are not able to explain what you mean. A wave, but uniquely not mechanical you say.
Now you want to believe in a particle, that has no shape. But there has never been and will never be a shapeless particle. So if it existed, which it doesn’t, it must have shape.
What shape are you claiming it is? I’m not interested in what shape I’M CLAIMING that photons are. They don’t exist. What shape are you claiming they are.
My God your Mother must be truly retarded.
January 1, 2010 at 8:20 pm |
This reminds me of the obstruction you caused in the LDP. You wanted to believe in global warming. But you refused point blank to come up with any evidence.
Even before that under the tag of fatfingers you also refused point blank to come up with any evidence. And the only exception if there was one was repeating the word “Venus” twice. Your Mother must be so stupid I almost want to request financial compensation from your Father.
January 1, 2010 at 10:40 pm |
Graeme
1.
From The paper:
“Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules…”
In other words, they experimentally demonstrated that buckyballs are waves. How else can their buckyball distribution graph be predicted?
2.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Look at the derivation of the scattering formula. Note the use of the word “photon”. This means photons are necessary to explain Compton scattering, unless you can derive it in some other way (I’m pretty sure you can’t). You must accept the existence of photons.
3.
Mass & energy are always conserved. This principle is compatible with all available evidence and makes many different kinds of correct predictions. The principle is also falsifiable. If the Big Bang theory violates this principle, then the Big Bang theory is wrong.
4.
The photoelectric effect also proves photons exist since there’s no other way to explain the threshold frequencies and work functions of metals. To counter this you would have to provide a mathematical theory which predicts a threshold frequency.
5.
A wave being a particle is a logical possibility. There’s nothing illogical about quantum physics. It just assumes axioms different to your own.
6.
Not only do photons not have shape, nothing in the universe has an exact shape, since all particles are waves. Your axiom that all objects have a shape is wrong.
7.
Photons are not created out of nothing. Energy & momentum are always conserved.
8.
None of my points cite consensus. Points 1, 2, 3 & 4 refer to observational evidence.
9.
No evidence suggests light is running along ropes. Give me a precise formula that is predicted from the rope theory, and cite its experimental verification. Ditto for your sea spray theory. Otherwise accept that both theories are wrong.
10.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong” and you also said “…this is not difficult stuff”. My question requires only a high school level knowledge of maths & physics (and the ability to Google), not that you be a world authority on quantum physics.
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
11.
“I went over all those before.”
No, there were some new points. Also, most of your responses to the points you did go through were inadequate. And also, if a point’s worth making, it’s worth making again.
12.
“I’m not going to get into this in a big way…”
Unacceptable. See point 2 for my proof of photons.
13.
Go read a high school maths textbook.
January 1, 2010 at 11:43 pm |
“1.
From The paper:
“Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules…”
In other words, they experimentally demonstrated that buckyballs are waves. How else can their buckyball distribution graph be predicted?”
NO YOU ARE LYING. THATS NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
January 1, 2010 at 11:45 pm |
There is not even one point above with evidence associated with it.
Concentrate on one thing you fuckwit. You cannot turn a cat into a dog simply by filibusting. You cannot bring the tooth fairy into reality simply by lying.
LETS ……… HAVE …… THE ….. FUCKING …… EVIDENCE.
The pretense that you had some evidence is not what we were after. You might have thought that is what we were after but its not.
The pretense that the evidence had already been presented is not what we were after. What we wanted was actual evidence.
Its the same old story. Same with global warming. Same with any priesthood situation that relies on Consensus.
January 1, 2010 at 11:49 pm |
Try to find evidence for something else for awhile. Evidence and or a reasoned argument. So you can learn what evidence and reasoned argument, not relying subtextually on authority or punditry ……… so you can learn what evidence and reasoned argument actually is.
Here is an easy one. One that I agree with. You need a warmup.
Give me a reasoned argument why one is to believe that the protons hangout in a relatively small and densely packed nucleus.
You might think this is elementary. And it is. But you want to actually get used to not lying, not bluffing, reasoning in a solid fashion, and not pretending you’ve handed over a reasoned argument or evidence when you haven’t done any such thing.
January 1, 2010 at 11:54 pm |
““What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?””
You tell me what you are claiming here. I can tell you one thing. It doesn’t mean that a buckyball is a wave. Since a wave is not what something is. A wave is what something does.
The fact is you don’t even know what you mean when you say this. If the buckyball was moving at 200 m/s you wouldn’t get to examine it in the first place. Since in one second it would be two football fields away. And like Jarrah you won’t piss of get off the pot. So you are not going to say that the buckyball is doing some sort of shimmy. So the fact is you refuse to say what you mean. But if the buckyball was doing some sort of high speed Lambada, it would not be a wave. It would be a buckyball still, moving in a certain way.
January 2, 2010 at 12:00 am |
This is the frustration of dealing with people who think its OK to absorb authority and consensus, and think its OK also to reject reason, evidence and logic.
This is OK for a religious person within some reasonable bounds. Its OK for a tarot card reader. It can never be OK for a scientist. Here is a bit of a treat. See this Christian fellow. Because he has these Christian beliefs he sees no need to tarry with stupidity and irrationality in science. Of course one might say that his Christianity itself is irrationality. And I would agree on technical grounds. But I’m willing to give Christians a bit of a pass on this matter. I’m not willing to give scientists or science lackeys a pass at all.
This is a bit of a treat actually. With regards to the fake science this fellow hits exactly the right tone.
January 2, 2010 at 2:24 am |
Graeme
1.
From The paper:
“Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules…”
This means that buckyballs are waves. The graphs in the paper are the evidence.
2.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
Look at the derivation of the scattering formula. Note the use of the word “photon”. This means photons are necessary to explain Compton scattering, unless you can derive it in some other way (I’m pretty sure you can’t). You must accept the existence of photons.
3.
Mass & energy are always conserved. This principle is compatible with all available evidence and makes many different kinds of correct predictions. The principle is also falsifiable. It means photons are not created ex nihilo.
4.
The photoelectric effect also proves photons exist since there’s no other way to explain the threshold frequencies and work functions of metals. To counter this you would have to provide a mathematical theory which predicts a threshold frequency.
5.
A wave being a particle without precise shape is a logical possibility. Quantum theory assumes postulates different to your own.
6.
No evidence suggests light is running along ropes. Give me a precise formula that is predicted from the rope theory, and cite its experimental verification. Ditto for your sea spray theory. Otherwise accept that both theories are wrong.
7.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong” and you also said “…this is not difficult stuff”.
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory. I’m not expecting you to believe the theory, just that you understand it. I know what it means to talk about its de Broglie wavelength since this is something that can be determined in diffraction experiments.
8.
Rutherford scattering proves dense positively charged nuclei exist. I don’t see why this is better evidence than Compton scattering (point 2) or the photoelectric effect (point 4).
9.
AGW is irrelevant.
10.
Make only one post at a time.
11.
Go read a high school maths textbook.
January 2, 2010 at 11:10 am |
You idiot. You are just spamming. If you are going to do that so am I.
January 2, 2010 at 11:12 am |
Looks like your going for the no-evidence filibuster act. Change reality through filibuster. Andrew Reynolds did this for four months straight and the entirety of his evidence amounted to a word-game.
Lets go over it again then:
1.
This paper shows that buckyballs are waves. Precisely why, in your opinion, is the paper wrong?
THE PAPER DOES NOT EVEN CLAIM TO SAY THAT BUCKYBALLS ARE WAVES. YOU ARE LYING.
2.
Before you said “The problem isn’t that I don’t know about it. The problem is that the theory is wrong.”
“What is the de Broglie wavelength of a buckyball (C60 molecule) that is moving at 200 m/s?”
Answer the question or else admit you don’t know anything about quantum theory.
I’LL NOT BE DRAWN INTO BULLSHIT TESTS BY IDIOTS. QUANTUM THEORY IS TOTALLY WRONG. HENCE ITS NOT POWERFULLY IMPORTANT TO BECOME A WORLD AUTHORITY ON IT. THIS IS LIKE EXPECTING ME TO BECOME A QUALIFIED CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY “AUDITOR” BEFORE I CAN EXPRESS SKEPTICISM, AS TO THE SCIENTIFIC VERACITY OF L.RON.HUBBARDS PSYCOLOGICAL SYSTEM.
I TEST PARADIGMS FOR THEIR PLAUSIBILITY FROM THE OUTSIDE. THIS DOES NOT, NOR EVER DID, REQUIRE HAVING TO LEARN THESE PARADIGMS INSIDE OUT. IF I WAS CHECKING OUT THE LOCAL MEDICINE MAN AND AUDITING HIS SYSTEM, THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE ME TO BE A QUALIFIED ADEPT IN THE HIGHER AFRICAN VOODOO.
3.
lambda’-lambda=h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
This is derived from the photons postulate,
NO ITS NOT. ITS DERIVED EMPIRICALLY. THE POSTULATE IS MADE. BUT THE FORMULA IS DERIVED EMPIRICALLY. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING A TROGAN HORSE. WE ACCEPT THE HORSE BUT WOULD CARE LESS FOR THE GREEKS INSIDE. THE POSTULATE IS MADE. THE EXPERIMENTS MAY IMPLY PARTICLE INVOLVEMENT BUT THATS DOUBTFUL. BUT IN ANY CASE THE GREEKS IN THIS TROJAN HORSE IS THE IDEA THAT THE PARTICLES MOVE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT THROUGH LONG DISTANCES OF OPEN SPACE. THIS IS A LIE. THERE IS NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP. THAT SOME PART OF AN EXPERIMENT MAY IMPLY PARTICLES IS NOT SURPRISING SIMPLY BECAUSE WAVES MOVE THROUGH PARTICLES USUALLY. AND THE PARTICLES THEMSELVES ALSO MOVE, AND POSSIBLY A GREAT DEAL FASTER THAN THE WAVE ITSELF. BUT ONLY FOR LIMITED DISTANCES. YOU CANNOT HAVE THE MEDIUM MOVING IN AT AN EXTENDED LIKE VELOCITY TO THE WAVE. OR ELSE THE MOVEMENT WOULD NOT BE A WAVE IT WOULD BE A VOLLEY.
and verified empirically.
A TOTAL LIE. THE FORMULA IS VERIFIED AS AN EMPIRICAL APPROXIMATION BETWEEN BOUNDARIES. ITS JUST SHORTHAND SO WE DON’T NEED TO GO TO TABLES.
It can’t be predicted without photons.
YOU ARE LYING. YOU MAY BRING EVIDENCE THAT THE FORMULA IMPLIES A MEDIUM MADE OF PARTICLES. IF YOU WANT TO CALL ORTHOGONAL ROPES PARTICLES. BUT NO EXPERIMENT EVER, AND CERTAINLY NO FORMULA, HAS EVER BROUGHT FORTH EVEN SO MUCH AS A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PHOTON RIGHTLY DEFINED. THERE MAY BE PARTICLES INVOLVED. THERE IS DEFINITELY NOT ANY PHOTONS IN THIS STORY.
Therefore photons exist.
NO THEY DON’T. YOU ARE LYING AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.
You must accept this as irrefutable evidence for photons.
YOU HAVE NOT COME UP WITH EVEN THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS YOU ARE LYING.
ACTUALLY YOU HAVE COME UP WITH EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTRARY THESIS. SINCE IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS, YOU WOULD SURELY HAVE COME GOOD WITH IT. THAT YOU HAVE NOT IMPLIES THAT ITS NOT THERE.
ONCE AGAIN FOR THE VERY STUPID. EVIDENCE OF THE MEDIUM IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR PHOTONS. PHOTONS ARE NOT MERELY PARTICLES. THE NOTION OF THE PHOTON DEFIES WAVE MOTION. SINCE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE WAVE MOTION THE PHOTON IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. PARTICLES ARE NOT A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. BUT PHOTONS, RIGHTLY DEFINED, ARE.
4.
Photons “travel across space, at the speed of light, for hundreds of millions of years” because of the conservation of momentum & energy.
NO THEY DON’T. YOU ARE LYING. LIGHT TRAVELS FOR MANY TENS OF MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS YES. BUT PARTICLES DON’T NORMALLY TRAVEL ALL THE WAY WITH THAT LIGHT. AND ANY PARTICLES THAT WOULD DO SO COULD NEVER BE PART OF THE LIGHT ITSELF. SINCE THIS IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY THAT WOULD DEFY WAVE MOTION.
5.
Make only one post at a time, so that you think carefully about what you say.
I DON’T NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT I’M SAYING. SINCE THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT STUFF. YOUR POSITION IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. AND YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.
January 2, 2010 at 11:13 am |
Science Toadies like Jarrah and Tinos, are not only mindless, they are very very boring.
January 2, 2010 at 8:44 pm |
Quoting from oil is mastery:
“An exotic form of matter was proposed when astronomers realized that stars traveled around the edge of a spiral galaxy with the same angular velocity as stars close to the center. This was a quandary, since according to Newton’s theory they should be slower. Therefore, astronomers assumed that a form of dark matter was imparting extra gravitational energy to the stars. It was called “dark” because the theory states that it cannot be detected, except indirectly.
This unseen matter is said to be sustaining all galaxies, preventing them from flying apart. Over the years, research groups have been trying to reconcile the lack of mass in the Universe, particularly in galaxy clusters, with their recessional velocity. There is not enough gravity in the visible stars and gas clouds to account for that velocity, as well as the consolidation of individual galaxies and clusters.”
These people know nothing about gravity. So they just make things up.
January 5, 2010 at 5:48 am |
“I DON’T NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT I’M SAYING.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
January 5, 2010 at 8:51 am |
I don’t. Thats just a fact. Until you guys actually come up with something there is no need to really put a great deal of thought into matters.
Have you found out what shape your special friends are supposed to be yet? Cubes?
January 6, 2010 at 4:39 am |
Well Graeme, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t have the capacity to actually think about anything.
On the subject of photons, you might like to google Fermi Satellite or Tiny Avalanche Photodiode, you unhinged loon.
January 6, 2010 at 8:32 am |
I also believe this may be relevant:
January 6, 2010 at 11:49 pm |
What for? Do you think its evidence for something? Evidence for particles? Or evidence for photons? If you think there is evidence for photons hiding somewhere in your link, you might like to say why you find this alleged evidence so powerfully convincing?
January 7, 2010 at 12:55 am |
Well at the very least it’s clearly evidence of pandas.
January 7, 2010 at 1:08 am |
Birdlab
if you didn’t come in under different email addresses all the time you wouldn’t get stuck in moderation
January 7, 2010 at 2:46 am |
Thanks Jason, I’ll go legit.
January 7, 2010 at 3:21 am |
“Well at the very least it’s clearly evidence of pandas.”
Thats no small matter. Pandas were the Sasquatch of their day. Experts didn’t believe they existed. And experts were not as stupid then as they are now.
Going legit Birdlab, would be to use your real name. So you can be like me and be forced to exercise tact, good thinking skills, and relentless fidelity to reason.
January 7, 2010 at 6:16 am |
“Pandas were the Sasquatch of their day.”
What? There were people running around the woods in panda costumes?
This statement:
“…exercise tact, good thinking skills, and relentless fidelity to reason.”
needs correcting:
“…exercise lunacy, the thinking skills of a rock-ape, and endless fidelity to complete bullshit.”
Fixed.
January 7, 2010 at 10:12 am |
They did not believe that the Panda existed. Some still don’t. They are the more die-hard of the skeptics. They think that believing in Pandas is akin to not having yet grown up and learnt to wipe ones nose. They think that Stephen Hawking has the low-down on what the universe is like. They imagine that Suskind was right to leave plumbing. They imagine that Phil Plait can see things when he looks through a telescope, other than exactly what Phil Plait wants to see.
These are the Panda-deniers. They want to move our thinking forward to a new and greater enlightenment. They point out correctly that science has established, by peer review, that bears never had, never could, and never will, live off bamboo shoots. They wonder how anything that looks like a teddy bear can get down to serious reproduction. They assume that the panda, as advertised would be extinct.
But what do they know? Its not as if they are ever going to work out that Pandas are indeed real. And that they are really a bunch of Chinamen from the communist tourist department wearing a suit. The Panda denialists lack the necessary guile, to see the world around them as it is, rather than how they would wish that world to be.
January 7, 2010 at 11:36 pm |
“…lack the necessary guile, to see the world around them as it is, rather than how they would wish that world to be.”
Oh the irony.
January 8, 2010 at 12:13 am |
You haven’t identified any irony Birdlab you mindless dense twat. Too stupid to realise that I was being ironic. Get a brain somehow, or just give it away.
January 8, 2010 at 12:17 am |
Graeme, you wouldn’t know irony if it snuck-up behind you and whacked you over the head with a moose.
January 10, 2010 at 2:40 am |
Thought I’d have a look at this thread. Tinos, any thoughts?
Bohr had an appropriate comment.
January 10, 2010 at 2:41 am |
Sorry, not Bohr but Pauli.
January 10, 2010 at 5:34 am |
It will just be more stupidity on your part Sacha. Science is not about smug one-liners dopey.
January 10, 2010 at 5:39 am |
“At the moment physics is again terribly confused. …I wish I had been a movie comedian or something of the sort and had never heard of physics.”
Well there is no question about that. Physics is indeed confused.
January 10, 2010 at 6:31 am |
Hi Sacha. I was just thinking about the venturi effect. Here’s the question: if I add a pressure gauge to the third section of that first diagram, will I get a high or low pressure? I believe it will be low, as Bernoulli’s principle won’t apply to the second joint since heat would be dissipated.
It’s related to a discussion I’m having with Terence Tao. I’ll have to build it, I think.
January 10, 2010 at 9:12 am |
Tinos I’ll have a look. But you could imagine the situation that There would be minimal friction thus vanishing heat loss.
January 10, 2010 at 9:28 am |
Imagine water falling into a bucket. A fast moving stream is decelerated, with the energy being dissipated as heat. I’m picturing the 2nd->3rd section interaction in the same way.
Another related question is this: Suppose you clamp in the water with clamps set to only provide say 20N of force. Could you nudge the left clamp from the left and have all the water naturally flow through the middle section until the left clamp hits the joint? If not (that is if a constant force from your left hand is required) then work is being done, and heat must be dissipated somewhere. Essentially your muscles would be heating up the water in the third section.
It’s pretty bad that I don’t know how this works, and I’ve tutored first year physics! I guess the uni courses have some room for improvement.
January 11, 2010 at 3:42 am |
At last you appear to be using your brain.
January 11, 2010 at 3:46 am |
we can’t all be as smart as you, Bird
January 11, 2010 at 5:15 am |
We’d be a doomed species if we were Jason.
January 13, 2010 at 1:53 am |
“we can’t all be as smart as you, Bird”
So it seems. More is the pity. If the people at work were even ALMOST as smart as me I’d be running things by now. Its that great gap that prevents me moving ahead. I’d just like people to make up half the difference. I wouldn’t want for anything more.
January 14, 2010 at 4:07 am |
Dear god.
January 14, 2010 at 8:16 am |
I’m sorry Tinos…
Most times I don’t proof read… of course I meant that he’s mentally UNSTABLE” which is why i suggested it is not a good idea to engage him.
January 14, 2010 at 9:32 am |
“THAN”
No Mr Bird, “THEN”.
January 14, 2010 at 10:15 am |
You are too stupid to understand this debate Cambria. Tell us more about this recapitalization business dopey.
January 15, 2010 at 2:35 am |
Has someone explained to Tinos he’s arguing with an unhinged lunatic who just refuses to believe any evidence he doesn’t like?
January 15, 2010 at 4:04 am |
He seems a bright chap. I think he’s probably figured that out.
January 15, 2010 at 10:04 am |
Don’t be an idiot Edney. Your justification for the global warming racket was the computer models. When we were debating the merits of special relativity you were so moronic as to think that referring back to the contested model was the equivalent of presenting evidence. We still have page after page after page of you archived on Prodeo making an idiot of yourself in this regard. You never did come up with any actual evidence.
January 15, 2010 at 10:23 am |
Ask Edney for evidence in favour of special relativity, he’s just as likely to start saying something like “…. imagine a little man is riding on the crest of a light wave front… ” As if the dopey bugger thinks that explaining a failed paradigm is the same as proving it. A blockhead. A real dope. A total dummy. A banker.
January 15, 2010 at 12:24 pm |
It’s just better to ignore Mr Bird. I’m surprised he hasn’t attacked Planck and quantum theory.
I think that Jason’s unfair in his post – why shouldn’t such a theory be science? In order to come to a better understanding of reality, it may be useful to consider all kinds of possibilities, even ones that appear absurd.
January 16, 2010 at 8:51 pm |
I have attacked quantum theory. Constantly. After all quantum theory comprises the totality of what the mainstream has invented about the atomic and subatomic worlds. I don’t understand the theory as well as I understand Special Relativity. But I understand it enough to see that its gone down the wrong path.
Photons are part of this criticism. Photons don’t exist. But this is not so important to quakademia. This is a generic complaint. That science keeps building without culling and review. This is a structural fault in science.
You see your problem Sacha, is that you are a mindless Toady. Incapable of reason. Not even fit to be Australian. Our culture of reason is being watered down by primitives such as yourself.
Here is just the start of my criticisms.
October 11, 2010 at 3:03 am |
im not a scientist. i have used many years of my life figuring out how the physics
of the world work from a logical philosophical point of view. looking into quantum physics Einstein relativity special relativity newton keppler hubble farady and lots of others
work on different part of physics. i have also watched loads of videos on youtube
from physics to ufos uncluding bigfoot. ofcource lots of it is garbage but eventually the mind is able to make sense out of the chaos. i also looked into fractals the fibonacci number sequence and holographic theory. the problems
with science is that the reality of particles has no meaning if there is no time to describe them in. for me science is backward. why assume effect explain cause.
in this mindset a car is moving forward because the exaust give it trust.
this is what i mean with backward. if the scientist have never seen a car in his entire life he will assume the cause that makes it move must come form it´s effect in this case the exaust. this example is the same thing as assuming particles come form particles. or particles created particles. the logical solution
is if we look at it in the opposite order the wave does not emerge from particles, but instead the particles emerge from waves. but how can particles be made of waves. if you have two waves at diffent wavelenght iterfereing and the energy of one frequencey cycle is stronger than the other, the structure of some of the waves changes. when a cycle with a low energy moves behind a cycle with a high energy, the high energy wave begins to move perpendicular toward the low energy wave, transverse. if we now repeat the process between high and low energy wave, the perpendiclar wave will decrease in wavelenght inward to a center and the logitudinal wil increse outward. now you have a confined space and a particle center with sub quanta around it. this is what is called phase conjugate waves. they phase conjugate, it means logitudinal motion against transverse. inward against outward. the logtudinal wave continue to move like they use to do but the newly created particles do not. now there has to be atleat two particles created this way for distance position and motion to mean enything. now there is a problem with information about the particles.
if they gonna move realtive to each other you can´t change the phase relationship becouse that would chenage the scale of the particle. so the only thing you can do is to look at the problem from a different angle. if the information of the particles have a symmetry and you want their postition to change, you have to change the symmetry without sacrificing the scale of the particle, but that is impossible. so the only thing you can do is to recreate the sysmmetry slightly diffent, by crating other particles to support it. only some of the particles can be moved. the rest of them can only have a temporal existence. i cannot explain it all, that would require an entire library.
the waves have no mass. the waves have only force that increses and decreases in magnitude. they also have a vector. a plane they moves in. two frequencies have to be in the same vector space to create standing waves. phase conjugate particles. Einsteins special relativity is only meant to explain time confined as a quantity of space relative to another frame of reference. gravity is time space wave and particle at the same time.
phase conjugate particles as fractions group themselves into bigger wholes.
the many small spacetime curvatures makes up the big ones. the reason particles repel reach other is because their waves are out of phase. when they move together they form a super phase conjugate wave. a bigger curvature of spacetime.
this is how the universe is fractal, how the universe is hologram. in my mind there is no dubt the universe is a fake a fraud an architecture. photons cannot exist, and are not needed to explain how particles behave in the presence of a wave. if photons existed there would be no need for the waves to exist, becouse it would be only a mechanical interaction with particles trough nothingness, and the universe had to be explein with some weird shit that did not look like enything ever seen before. once again the effect, the particles of light comes in the way, effect become cause. the science of photons is complete moronic and backward.
October 11, 2010 at 6:32 am |
Coldarc: You might be a genius, but I’m not going to take you seriously until you can derive the Compton scattering formula (without assuming photons):
lambda’-lambda = h/(mc) (1-cos(theta))
My advice is that if you want to actually learn physics (almost) for free then you should look up introductory maths and physics courses at a uni website, and in particular look at the required reading. Then go on eBay, buy the textbooks, and spend the next few years working through them (with some home-made experiments).
That said, you’d be better off doing an actual science degree. The courses are fairly cheap given the gov’t subsidies.
October 11, 2010 at 11:27 am |
Why would you think that deriving the compton scattering formula was of any importance at all? It isn’t. He didn’t mention the compton scattering formula doofus. Address what he actually said blockhead.
If anyone wanted your advice I’m sure they’d just beat it out of you.
October 11, 2010 at 11:47 am |
Bird: Lately I’ve had an unhealthy desire to meet you in person. Are you obese? A pensioner? Ex-council worker? Deadbeat dad? Were you abused as a child?
October 11, 2010 at 11:58 am |
This is not the forum for you to be cruising on. I can assure you of this since I know Jason Soon and he’s not that way inclined.