Once dopey concepts get locked into the mainstream, they wind up with their ready-made band of unscience supporters. People with the toadying gene. People who mistake the sociological process of elevating dumb ideas, with the scientific process of proving good ideas. In the question of light we see evidence only that light is wave motion. And this contradicts the concept that light is particle motion. It refutes it.
Nonetheless its possible that where light hits matter and changes in its direction, it makes sense that at this point, we can find clues as to the nature of the medium involved. In the mainstream they do not have any good theory as to what it is that the light, which we know to be waves, is moving through. Ocean waves of course move through water. Sound waves through air. In both cases the medium is made up of particles called molecules. Where a sound wave or an ocean wave hits solid matter and rebounds, its not unreasonable to think we could have some manifestations that give off clues as to the nature of the mediums that these waves are moving through. But in the cases where the mediums are water and air, we would not see these clues as clues. Since we already know about the mediums of air and water through other means.
But supposing we are talking light? Here we do not know all that much about the medium that the light moves through. Even if we have a good theory about it we don’t have all the dots filled in with that theory. So its not unreasonable to assume that at the point in which light scatters, or changes direction, that we would find manifestations of the medium itself. Quite different from the light, which is wave motion. But here the toady steps in and gets in the way of authentic science. Here instead of being on the lookout as to what might be rightly speculated about the medium that light travels through, the science toady is at the ready to halt all progress by interpolating his particle view of light onto the scene. This when we already know that light is not particle movement. But wave movement. It would be alright to speculate about unknown particles being part of this rebound interaction. But this is another story.
Here is the idiot Tinos at work:
“Irrefutable evidence of photons:
You need to show how this formula can be deduced without the photons assumption. ”
Of course the above is idiocy. A formula is merely an aid to calculations and proves nothing in itself. Tinos could die and be born again and he would still be a toadying sycophant quite unsuited for science. The priesthood and its toadying sycophants appear to give great totem-like belief and status to formulas. Which are nothing more than human created general rules for trying to lock in predictions of how a thing is going to act. The dummies actually mix the formula up with the reality. The formula becomes the reality. In the same way that a global warming fraudster is so useless that he will habitually put his computer model ahead of the empirical evidence relating to the climate, past and present. Here is what I had to say about the comments of the idiotic Tinos:
“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.”
Can anyone help Tinos out? Can anyone find actual evidence for light being particle movement as opposed to wave movement? We don’t want this fool to be clutching at such a lame straw as what he is doing. He’s just stuck on this one point. Refuses to budge since he has no evidence. In this story we have waves coming in. This he would surely acknowledge if he were a person of good character and not a complete fuckwit. Then we have an interaction with matter, and we have waves going out. Nowhere do we have evidence for anything else but light as waves. On the other hand what would interest me, is if there was evidence in this interaction between light and matter, for behaviour relating to lights medium. Rather than light itself. If there was manifestations relating to the medium, yes for sure, this is where you might be likely to see them. In the same way as you see manifestations of water when a wake crashes against a rock and a fine sea-spray is produced. No longer in this case are we seeing a manifestation of the wave itself. But rather we are looking at the behaviour of the waves medium. That is to say the water and the air.
Otherwise if you cannot hang out here putting up evidence for photons you might want to go and abuse Tinos on Jason Soons site for being a belligerent idiot. If you want to do that here is the thread: