Epiménides

You're right, but I'm ready to take criticism on my ideas. You're right too, but the burden of proof is not only on me. The burden of proof is only on me if I wanted to impose my theory (if I wanted to substitute the accepted theory). I just showed other view, other idea, other explanation about. A jugde cannot defeat/reject a new clue in an investigation just because the witness who brought the clue doesn't have any proof/evidence. I think science should work in the same way. That's all.

A new logical argument: slander as a substitute for answer. _________ Since the beginning of time there was a plenty of particles everywhere. This doesn't contradict neither the BigBang cosmology nor the Newtonian cosmology (infinite-eternal universe). I don't know where is vacuum. Maybe vacuum "is present" in a sort of "porosity" that regulates the density of matter. So these "particles everywhere" constitute the light conductivity. My "photosensibile particles" are massive. They are atoms. It is impossible to conceive something massless. In physics it is a delirium. You can see my photosensible particles in air, glass, water, and so on. We can see them, but we can't falsify our points of view about the problem whether they travel or not (at least yet). Implications of moving with respect to these particles: you are right, even it could imply the famous "aether wind". But the same problems are present in the accepted theory too. I say that considering those streams of millions and millions of travelling photons everywhere that the accepted theory states.

I said: "I feel we don't know very much about vacuum. First, the "vacuum" is not so empty as we think. It is full of particles (travelling photons or "steady photosensible particles", it doesn't matter, [ I meant: in the accepted theory it is full of travelling photons, in that of mine it is full of "steady ..." ]) that allows us to see the Sun, galaxies, planets, spaceships and so on. Probably, the particles density in "vacuum" is lower than the particles density in the air: this is a fact, even if my "steady photons" theory is wrong. So we have a "vacuum" which is full of photons -we don't know whether they are travelling or they are) in a steady state. When I use the word "full" I mean "as many as is necessary" to see (stars, sun, galaxies). " ___________ If you cannot falsify it, that means that you think/believe photons trasmit light by travelling (instead of transmiting light in the way I said --by chain-reaction and not by travelling).

I didn't say that photons requiere anything. I just talked about other view/explanation of the propagation of light. I said vacuum is not empty. So, there is no "empty vacuum". Everything in the universe is on the vacuum, but we can't find "anything empty". Everything seems to be "full of something". However, we have different densities of particles in the universe. This is the reason why I think that my theory ("conjecture" , if you want) about photoconductive particles is less problematic. Because of a "not-empty vacuum", I propose it instead of streams of millions and millions of travelling photons everywhere. So: how can you falsificate (in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not by travelling)?

As you like it. But science is not religion. A scientific accepted theory is not a dogma. There is only one burden: to know the truth, to achieve a better (if not the best) knowledge of the universe. Nobody knows how to falsificate "(in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and retransmission and not by travelling". As long as you can't falsificate that, the burden is upon you too. I'll do it as many times as it is necessary. But I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not predicting facts, but explaining them.

It doesn't matter if we/they are moving or not, in the same way it doesn't matter whether you are seeing through the glass window from a train. Aether is something different. It proposes a kind of quintessence, a sort of "substance". I'm not talking about any substance/new element/ quitessence. I'm just talking about particles. If you think that particles in vacuum means "aether", then the accepted theory implies an aether too. Because your vacuum is so full of particles as that of mine. The speed of light: the same problems you set out are present in the accepted theory too. ______________ D H: You didn't answer my question: How can you falsificate (in Popper's sense) the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not by travelling)? _______________ swansont: You didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that.

I feel we don't know very much about vacuum. First, the "vacuum" is not so empty as we think. It is full of particles (travelling photons or "steady photosensible particles", it doesn't matter) that allows us to see the Sun, galaxies, planets, spaceships and so on. Probably, the particles density in "vacuum" is lower than the particles density in the air: this is a fact, even if my "steady photons" theory is wrong. So we have a "vacuum" which is full of photons -we don't know whether they are travelling or they are) in a steady state. When I use the word "full" I mean "as many as is necessary" to see (stars, sun, galaxies).

1) Sorry: I wanted to mean that the photon you emitted is not the same one you detected. So, you emitted a sort of "chain": the photon you can see in your detector always was in the same spatial point. I should have said: Even if you were right and have "under detection" just one single photon, that photon always was in the same spatial point even before you "emitted" it. The emitted photon and the detected photon is not the same. 2) You are wrong: my theory is not falsiable yet. At the moment I haven't got it, but we don't know whether it is not falsiable. By the way: how can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)? Just because you don't like or don't understand my theory it doesn't mean it is not true. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the way things are according to my theory. Again: How can you falsificate the (accepted) theory that says that photons trasmit light by travelling instead of transmiting light in the way I said (by chain-reaction and not travelling anywhere)?

Even if you were right and have "under detection" just one single photon, that photon always was in the same spatial point even before you emitted it --that's what I can say according to my theory (and nobody can prove that I were wrong).

I'm not talking about simplicity in a scientific sense but in a comprehensive, rational sense: I mean a clear and comprehensive rational representation. That transmission process (absorption-emission-absorption and so forth, at 270.000 ms/s) doesn't seem to be very natural. It seems to me that my idea is more natural and comprehensive: a glass is full of photosensible particles, and every particle is "activated" in a sort of "chain reaction" and so on. Instead of absorbing-emiting-absorbing-emiting photons, I think that there is a "relay process", a "retransmission process". It seems to me that it is more natural and reasonable to think that there is a photoconductive medium instead of thinking there were an absorbing-emiting medium. That's all.

Klaynos : I think If you turn off the emitter, you can't observe anything, you lost any signal. You're right, this is the accepted theory: "The photon whilst travelling threw glass is absorbed and emitted thousands (probably more) times." But...don't you think it is too much complicated? Simplex sigillum veri (what is simple is sign of being true). I think that what I propose is not only less complicated but more natural too. In that sense, my theory (mere idea, if you prefer) is so hard to refute as the accepted theory. "[...]the process you've applied there's no way to distinguish a true of false test so it's not science." You are right too: I haven't got yet any way to falsificate it (in Popper's conception). But at the same time, the accepted theory (I mean: the photon that left A is the same ...) has not a sharp, clear way to distinguish a true of false test (whether photons are moving or not).

To Klaynos: "The background light level is VERY low." That is my point: a VERY low (or the LOWEST)level of background light is enough to keep/sustain the "photons-chain". I don't misunderstand how to "see" a photon: I mean there are things in the universe we can't know by "seeing": we can know them a) by thinking (reason), b) by calculating (maths, geometry, etc.). Sayonara: "The alternative is that as you walk around (or indeed stay still) your eye collides with stationary photons which somehow relay information about your surroundings" Yes, basically that's what I said. You are right when you say: "I don't think that the conclusion "photons do not travel" can be supported by the observation "a photon leaving A might not be the same photon which reaches your eye"." I have no proof. My reason/logic/common sense doesn't allow me to accept that a the particle left A going through glass is the same particle that reaches my retina. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't accept it. It is not convincing to me. If there were any definitive proof about, well: I'll accept it. At the moment, there is nothing that proves photons go through glass. I don't want to impose my ideas on anybody. All what I do is offer some new ideas about a non-decisively-resolved problem.

To Sayonara: I didn't understand it (i'm not english-speaker). Now I know what you are talking about. _____ Again: the problem is whether the photon that left A (any point/body in space) going through glass is the same one that touches the observer's retina or not. I say it cannot be the same one. Then it made me think photon doesn't travel.

Objectively, i. e., in an integral view, in an integral knowledge (integral, I say: every frame of reference). Maths is just a frame/part of the true human knowledge about phyisics. The objective problem (not mathematical problem) is if a photon travels or not.

Klaynos: You said: "I put them in a completely photon proof box, and they are clearly spacially separated I can walk between the damn things!" 1) "Them" or "it"? 2) How did you put them in a photon proof box? 3) How could you see them? 4) Was it either motionless/still or moving? 4) How is a seen photon? and what is it look like? Mooeypoo: I haven't found any argument in you against what I said: photons don't travel anywhere. Those explanations are mathematically right, they work, but not objectively right. Photons don't travel.

You didn't show anything that proves photons travel.

To Klaynos: It is not true. You have no proof to say "spacially". Your detector shows a kind of break or interval (this is time, not space). You didn't see any isolated photon. Besides, it was made in order to detect one single photon (another photons are not detected). To Mooeypoo: there was a chain-reaction photons from the Sun to the Earth (8 minutes). It is not a proof.

I said photons don't travel anywhere. That's my conclusion after having thought about it. You didn't ever see any photon travelling anywhere. That is what I'm talking about. You said I had no proof: you have no proof either that photons travel. Please, I want you to show me these proves. You have the proves -ok so I want to see them.

You said: "Because you came to us suggesting a theory that contradicts all we know about physics. Unlike what you would like to believe, the burden of proof is on you, not on us, and you're not holding up to it." We are in equal conditions. Nobody ever saw photons traveling anywhere. _________ Newton: he discovered gravity by thinking, then he states laws by using Math. Darwin: observation is not maths. It includes thought. Eratosthenes: you said he "*CALCULATED* the circumference of the Earth using geometry and MATH (sin/cos, length of shadows, etc). That is *ABSOLUTELY* using math." I said: "he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he use Maths to measure the Earth." So: he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he uses Maths to CALCULATE the Earth by using MATH and geometry (*ABSOLUTELY*). Well, now are you happy? Human mind and Science works in this way: -problem or question -idea or aswer -coherent idea or coherent aswer -proves, precision, and so on. You don't know anything about epistemology. You should read Alan Charlmers, Popper, Kuhn, even Einstein's autobiography. A tool (maths) is useful and necessary if we have an idea or plan. Even the number is an idea, as Pythagoras said.

Listen: I said: photons don't travel anywhere. Essentially, that's all what I said. Then I try to provide an explanation, that's all. So why don't you think about that instead of disqualifying my paper? Whay don't you investigate if my premise ("photons don't...") is true or false instead of investigating how much I know about physics? _______ "Saying it's "just a tool" is just like saying the brain is "just a tool" for processing thought." Newton didn't discover gravity by using mathematics. Mathematics was a tool to precise his idea. Darwin didn't write The Origin of Species because of maths. Eratostenes: he had an idea on how to measure the Earth, then he use Maths to measure the Earth. And so on.

You are right: I've never been able to understand nor conceive classical and non-classical explanations about transparency phenomena and you don't either. Neither of us. We can understand it mathematically, not in any other way. It is not enough for me to understand some equations. A theoretical explanation must provide a coherent, reasonable representation. That's what I'm looking for. That's what I try to provide. Science cannot be reduced to equations. Mathematics is just a tool, not the "Referee of the Truth". Science is NOT mathematics: mathematics is a tool for Science. Your ghostly "massless" photon is pseudoscience (you should move it to Magic).

Science is based on ideas, then on logical, coherent and reasonable ideas, y then, but not before, on falsification (Popper) and observational precision proves (for example, mathematics). I have no mathematically precised explanation (at least yet).

Maxwell himself asserted it was his purpose to translate light phenomena to math (Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism). Physics is not an ancilla mathematicae. Physics must be supported by reason and human logic, not by mathematical calculus. For example, infinitesimal calculus is mathematically useful, but it is logically false, as Leibnitz himself admitted.

Spanish/English: http://propagaciondelaluz.blogspot.com/