What is the only radiation we detect here on Earth that is NOT made of photons?
Grumpy
Apologies for editing it down to a one liner - I don't think I've seen a reply to this seemingly rhetorical question.
So what's the answer to it ?
The limitations of the scientific method and scientism
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Apologies for editing it down to a one liner - I don't think I've seen a reply to this seemingly rhetorical question.
So what's the answer to it ?
Yes, I understand polarised sunglasses, having sat on a few expensive pairs in my time. Still, this ..
.. The photon(which has no mass) is a wave of electro-magnetic energy frozen in time ..
is something I'm trying to get my mind around.
To say so inevitably means that the existing understandings, theories etc have to be discounted first. This means that if what is being proposed is radical [yet possibly valid] would require it's proponents to have enormous qualification. I mean by this that a person wishing to overturn such a wealth of scientific history needs to know and justify everything he states. This would require not only a university professorship but about 100 years of full time intellectual study and about 1000 years+ of argument and debate. In other words...not possible. This is why I worded my web site zero point theory the way I have as I acknowledge that the change if any, must come from the scientists them selves and not me because no matter how qualified and reputed I might be I would fail.
The debunk in math alone would run into hundreds if not thousands of volumes. Hopeless.
So to provoke change if any is possible at all, I only have to ask a few salient questions and let the scientist do what they do best.
I am not interested in trying to replace one dogma for another either.
He is attempting to describe the seeming contradiction that from a mass perspective the photon travels across a vacuum at 'c' but from an photon or "energy" perspective it has no speed and does not travel.
On one hand it can be said that the photon does not transit space, but to do so means it has no speed
On the other hand it can be said that it does transit space and that is where the speed of light is found.
So to claim 'c' from a photons perspective is invalid, yet to claim 'c' from a mass perspective is valid.
The conundrum is that to grant a photon the value of 'c' one can only look at it from a mass perspective and that is why the the light effect model is invalid, it proves itself to be so...
It is so confused that no one can get their head around it in the same moment so the logic chases itself all over the place. Hence the constant attacks against SRT IMO
Note: other theories and laws are not subjected to the level of attack that SRT is....by many orders of magnitude.
If I am mistaken I apologize and maybe someone could clarify it.
RW; Apologies for having edited your post down, however, the following is what I can handle at the moment;
No, I wouldn't - but with instruments of no great expense or sophisitication, I would.
In your above appropriate relative scale, I would say the same for the subject at hand. I would think there are telescopes of ridiculously great magnification / resolution - in fact, I recall seeing something on a science program recently about such a scope as to be able to see to the very limits of 'the end of the universe' .. or something. So my aporia remains - looms large in fact. How wide is a galaxy way over there ? Some light years width ? Still, if expansion is happening at some appreciable speed as to be measured in terms of 'c', I still think that over some appreciable time ( a year, ten years) some difference in distance from one to another due to expansion should be detected. I am not labouring the point unnecessarily here - I find this incredibly odd.
A very interesting proposition, and what't more, at my level of language. Thanks. Question - if Mr Alien can look here to see the past, does that not mean that the past is also somehow occulted here ?
No, I wouldn't - but with instruments of no great expense or sophisitication, I would.
In your above appropriate relative scale, I would say the same for the subject at hand. I would think there are telescopes of ridiculously great magnification / resolution - in fact, I recall seeing something on a science program recently about such a scope as to be able to see to the very limits of 'the end of the universe' .. or something. So my aporia remains - looms large in fact. How wide is a galaxy way over there ? Some light years width ? Still, if expansion is happening at some appreciable speed as to be measured in terms of 'c', I still think that over some appreciable time ( a year, ten years) some difference in distance from one to another due to expansion should be detected. I am not labouring the point unnecessarily here - I find this incredibly odd.
A very interesting proposition, and what't more, at my level of language. Thanks. Question - if Mr Alien can look here to see the past, does that not mean that the past is also somehow occulted here ?
My question was ..
Regardless of what science says, why not cut to the chase and say what YOU think happens ?
Ah, good. A measured response from you, giving your view on the issue. Informative too.
Let's wait for Grumpy's answer too - and possibly his response to your above.
Ok in over view with out going to deep.
The light effect is the result of the inertia of surface particles resonating to the vibration, of the source across zero distance space.
The distance between objects in this universe only exists when t= > o duration.
At t=0 there is no distance of separation so that one object may be considered as touching another object yet providing the illusion of distance from the perspective of mass at t= >0 duration yet no separation at an energy perspective of t= 0
essentially it means that the distance between the surface of the Earth and the surface of the moon is zero and only expands to distance if you actually want to measure it using a mass metric [ie. a metal ruler]
The speed of 'c' is confused because
1] it mixes metrics.
you are measuring a light particle wave with a massive four dimensional metric. [ ie. a metal ruler ]
2] If you choose to measure a vacuum then use vacuum as your metric. [ie 0=0]
After all what is a meter of vacuum other than a meter determined by mass and not vacuum.
Of course a meter of vacuum is nonsense when using 4 dimensional volume as a metric as vacuum is a value and not a substance.
the void of space is indeed a void of nothingness, zero, zilch of infinite dimension. [ the dimensions created only by the presence of mass ]
so the light effect is caused by the destination mass resonating to the light source vibration across zero distance, that change in resonance essentially is at the rate of 'c' which we have been historically recorded incorrectly as transit times. The rate of 'c' is a statement of mass inertia and is invariant accordingly. and directly linked to the constancy of Gravity. via the zero point.
and this is why your body and and my body and every ones body share the same universal constancy of Gravity and inertia thus we also share the same zero point as the sun or the moon or anything of substance.
This leads on to a more philosophical/psychological/scientific mechanism for universal collective UN-consciousness, objectivity and consciousness it self.
Unity in diversity etc
Last edited:
POssibly one way to help describe the above with an experiment is to:
take two pieces of heating iron into space and separate them by say 2 (mass metric) meters.
SO we have two pieces of iron with 2 meters separation. in a vacuum.
Now heat only one of those pieces of iron so that it glows red hot. Note the changes in the other piece of iron as it slowly resonates to reflect the heat source iron.
presume nothing about photons or transit times between the two pieces of iron.
And ask how is this so if distance between those two objects is actually zero.
Ask why does it take the iron time to heat up,
Then think along the lines of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation, balance, entropy etc... no transiting photons required. Just the photons in the mass only.
Then extend to quantum entanglement and the picture starts to form. How a packet of energy 1 billion light years away is essentially the same packet sitting on your table in the form of a battery or a lap top or in the lens or dish of a space telescope
take two pieces of heating iron into space and separate them by say 2 (mass metric) meters.
SO we have two pieces of iron with 2 meters separation. in a vacuum.
Now heat only one of those pieces of iron so that it glows red hot. Note the changes in the other piece of iron as it slowly resonates to reflect the heat source iron.
presume nothing about photons or transit times between the two pieces of iron.
And ask how is this so if distance between those two objects is actually zero.
Ask why does it take the iron time to heat up,
Then think along the lines of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation, balance, entropy etc... no transiting photons required. Just the photons in the mass only.
Then extend to quantum entanglement and the picture starts to form. How a packet of energy 1 billion light years away is essentially the same packet sitting on your table in the form of a battery or a lap top or in the lens or dish of a space telescope
Very true, but for an object 10' away we have the ability to use active/invasive techniques to do the measurement (touch it with a stick, bounce light or sound off of it, etc.). The measurement signal to noise ratio in such a measurement is much better than we can do on an astronomical scale.
There is a theoretical device called a "light cone". Essentially, the width of the cone is how far away you can see a certain amount into the past. For example, when you look at the moon, the light cone is only 1 light-second wide. We're not blocked from seeing further back in time, the passage of time has carried the information away. Light from the moon that is older than 1 second has already passed us and traveled out into space. So if you were 2 light-seconds away from the moon, the cone is 2 light-seconds wide.
Lakon
The only radiation that is not made of photons that we can see on Earth are Cosmic rays. I notice QQ ignored the question, mainly as he doesn't have a clue. Cosmic rays are actually particles of matter that have been accelerated to near light speed and are the most energetic radiation we know of. There is one other form of radiation that is composed of particles, maybe he'll know that one. Hint, it has never been observed from Earth. And I do not count the debris of fission as radiation, it's not in the sense of astronomy.
Anything moving AT light speed experiences no passage of time, but the top speed of light means the photon takes time to travel through space from our frame of reference. The same time dilation happens if mass is accelerated to close to light speed, time passes slower and slower the closer it gets to that speed(if it has mass, it will never reach light speed), though the occupants of a space ship going that fast would experience time passing normally, unless they looked out the window(IE observed the difference between time's passage outside and inside their own frame). The photon is frozen in time between it's point of emission and it's point of absorption, to it they are one event, they are simply conduits of energy between two points, between those two points they are waves described by their wavelength and frequency. In Quantum Mechanics the position of a photon is a probability wave perpendicular to the direction of travel. It collapses to a single point when it is absorbed.
If photons were visible/detectable while travelling, space would be opaque, good thing it isn't.
The VISIBLE Universe is about 13.7 billion years in all directions from Earth. But since most of it is moving, it's all being seen as it was far in the past and we cannot see their present positions, estimates of the current size of the Universe range between 40 and 100 billion light years, depending on the weight you give to certain difficult measurements. It has not been pinned down further than that, it's an interesting question but it is really beyond our ability to determine accurately yet. And no, we don't have super-duper telescopes that can see everything in great detail further back than about 7 billion years(maybe more today or when the James Webb gets into orbit), we do get light to analyse from near the 13.5 billion year range(remember, time is a distance in space time), mostly from Quasars or starburst galaxies. Some of the furthest galaxies are only seen one photon at a time, it takes hours of our best stargazing to get enough to see any shape, but the photons themselves give you lots of information, even one at a time.
No, he sees us as we were, we see him as he was. If Mr Alien was 10 light years away, any signal you sent would take 10 years to get there, if he answered immediately it would be another ten years before you got his reply. You are each ten years in the past of the other(as seen by the other), you both see the other as being in your past(as seen by you, in each of your separate frames of reference). Now substitute 10 thousand(or any other number)at each place there is a 10 or ten and read the sentence again. The past is long gone here, we can still see it if we look out into space. Not OUR past, but THEIR past. And their past is long gone where they are, but they can see our past by looking over here.
What QQ has posted is pretty much non-sense, word salad. The photon has no mass, it is a packet of electro-magnetic energy, it has no mass(and no mass perspective, whatever he meant by that)and has been measured to travel through a distance at a very precise speed(in vacuum), the speed of photons(IE light). Spend more time on physorg. You will learn lots over there, QQ is well named(as am I, for that matter).
Grumpy
The only radiation that is not made of photons that we can see on Earth are Cosmic rays. I notice QQ ignored the question, mainly as he doesn't have a clue. Cosmic rays are actually particles of matter that have been accelerated to near light speed and are the most energetic radiation we know of. There is one other form of radiation that is composed of particles, maybe he'll know that one. Hint, it has never been observed from Earth. And I do not count the debris of fission as radiation, it's not in the sense of astronomy.
Anything moving AT light speed experiences no passage of time, but the top speed of light means the photon takes time to travel through space from our frame of reference. The same time dilation happens if mass is accelerated to close to light speed, time passes slower and slower the closer it gets to that speed(if it has mass, it will never reach light speed), though the occupants of a space ship going that fast would experience time passing normally, unless they looked out the window(IE observed the difference between time's passage outside and inside their own frame). The photon is frozen in time between it's point of emission and it's point of absorption, to it they are one event, they are simply conduits of energy between two points, between those two points they are waves described by their wavelength and frequency. In Quantum Mechanics the position of a photon is a probability wave perpendicular to the direction of travel. It collapses to a single point when it is absorbed.
If photons were visible/detectable while travelling, space would be opaque, good thing it isn't.
The VISIBLE Universe is about 13.7 billion years in all directions from Earth. But since most of it is moving, it's all being seen as it was far in the past and we cannot see their present positions, estimates of the current size of the Universe range between 40 and 100 billion light years, depending on the weight you give to certain difficult measurements. It has not been pinned down further than that, it's an interesting question but it is really beyond our ability to determine accurately yet. And no, we don't have super-duper telescopes that can see everything in great detail further back than about 7 billion years(maybe more today or when the James Webb gets into orbit), we do get light to analyse from near the 13.5 billion year range(remember, time is a distance in space time), mostly from Quasars or starburst galaxies. Some of the furthest galaxies are only seen one photon at a time, it takes hours of our best stargazing to get enough to see any shape, but the photons themselves give you lots of information, even one at a time.
No, he sees us as we were, we see him as he was. If Mr Alien was 10 light years away, any signal you sent would take 10 years to get there, if he answered immediately it would be another ten years before you got his reply. You are each ten years in the past of the other(as seen by the other), you both see the other as being in your past(as seen by you, in each of your separate frames of reference). Now substitute 10 thousand(or any other number)at each place there is a 10 or ten and read the sentence again. The past is long gone here, we can still see it if we look out into space. Not OUR past, but THEIR past. And their past is long gone where they are, but they can see our past by looking over here.
What QQ has posted is pretty much non-sense, word salad. The photon has no mass, it is a packet of electro-magnetic energy, it has no mass(and no mass perspective, whatever he meant by that)and has been measured to travel through a distance at a very precise speed(in vacuum), the speed of photons(IE light). Spend more time on physorg. You will learn lots over there, QQ is well named(as am I, for that matter).
Grumpy
Lakon
Oops, I answered the wrong question.
But remember light travels at 186,000 miles per second(300,000 k/s), a light year is many times the size of our solar system out to Neptune, the Oort cloud is about a light year in diameter, the nearest star over 4 ly away. Seeing a light year's movement on a galaxy a billion light years away is well beyond the ability of any telescope we have yet to conceive. We can get a pretty good idea of the width of a galaxy at that distance, but as QQ will undoubtedly point out, you are seeing that galaxy as it was a billion years ago, it isn't where you see it, nor does it look like what you are seeing in the present. But the spectrum of light it emits will tell you it's speed, it's composition, the elements it has formed, the amount of certain gasses and dusts. And the observations you make allows you to compare and contrast with the 100s of billions of other galaxies. And galaxies are big, the smallest ones are 10 thousand ly across, the largest are millions.
Grumpy
Oops, I answered the wrong question.
But remember light travels at 186,000 miles per second(300,000 k/s), a light year is many times the size of our solar system out to Neptune, the Oort cloud is about a light year in diameter, the nearest star over 4 ly away. Seeing a light year's movement on a galaxy a billion light years away is well beyond the ability of any telescope we have yet to conceive. We can get a pretty good idea of the width of a galaxy at that distance, but as QQ will undoubtedly point out, you are seeing that galaxy as it was a billion years ago, it isn't where you see it, nor does it look like what you are seeing in the present. But the spectrum of light it emits will tell you it's speed, it's composition, the elements it has formed, the amount of certain gasses and dusts. And the observations you make allows you to compare and contrast with the 100s of billions of other galaxies. And galaxies are big, the smallest ones are 10 thousand ly across, the largest are millions.
Grumpy
@Grumpy,
Ever heard of Muons....? Why didn't you mention them?
speaking of radiation:
What about Cherenkov Radiation? Got any ideas?
You guys are so strange.
You quote articles and refer to terms as if already those terms are fully defined by science:
The use of the term energy:
So you wish to tell me you know about energy? better that R Feynman?
ok so the use of energy as a term referring to substance is typical of scientism. [ energy is not and never will be a substance - massless or massive]
Next,
you say:
and I could go on.
You state the above with emphatic and complete belief yet there is not a shred of evidence to support the most critical aspect. That being that a photon transits in any perspective.
Every time you say such as the above you are committing a fraud by saying that the photon transits space is a known fact when it is not.
If it was you would have your $500 a few days ago. Alternatively we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
So why do you commit a fraud like this?
...the only answer I can come up with is because every one else does...
and use terms like energy when that term suffers terrible obfuscation and manipulation by all in the scientific fields.
"energy is merely a value or the potential to do work - the potential to move - something." It has no more complexity to it than the terms 1 second, 1 meter or 12 volts ~ purely a value only.
Read R Feynman again
E = mc^2 should read: [The Potential To Do Work = mc^2]
So mc^2 is the sum potential to do work....
basic logic...
sure you can fudge it all you like with technical know-how and make calls upon authority but the logic stands as it is and it is not my logic [E=mc^2 is your logic so you wear it]
Ever heard of Muons....? Why didn't you mention them?
speaking of radiation:
What about Cherenkov Radiation? Got any ideas?
You guys are so strange.
You quote articles and refer to terms as if already those terms are fully defined by science:
The use of the term energy:
So you wish to tell me you know about energy? better that R Feynman?
ok so the use of energy as a term referring to substance is typical of scientism. [ energy is not and never will be a substance - massless or massive]
Next,
you say:
and
and
and I could go on.
You state the above with emphatic and complete belief yet there is not a shred of evidence to support the most critical aspect. That being that a photon transits in any perspective.
Every time you say such as the above you are committing a fraud by saying that the photon transits space is a known fact when it is not.
If it was you would have your $500 a few days ago. Alternatively we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
So why do you commit a fraud like this?
...the only answer I can come up with is because every one else does...
and use terms like energy when that term suffers terrible obfuscation and manipulation by all in the scientific fields.
"energy is merely a value or the potential to do work - the potential to move - something." It has no more complexity to it than the terms 1 second, 1 meter or 12 volts ~ purely a value only.
Read R Feynman again
E = mc^2 should read: [The Potential To Do Work = mc^2]
So mc^2 is the sum potential to do work....
basic logic...
sure you can fudge it all you like with technical know-how and make calls upon authority but the logic stands as it is and it is not my logic [E=mc^2 is your logic so you wear it]
Last edited:
deleted
Last edited:
Quantum Quack
If I set up a laser to transmit information, coded information that a television will show as a picture, perhaps, and I transmit between the laser and the receiver, do photons(specific photons in a specific pattern)not travel between them. Of course they do. So you are simply and completely wrong. The fact that the photons are being sent and received is obvious(we receive EXACTLY the photons we sent, no doubt about their origin or final outcome). The fact is that every one of those photons are time delayed because of transit time. The time delay is directly proportional to the distance between transmitter and receiver, nothing else. So the deductive conclusions that the photons are moving between the two points at a set speed and that it takes time for photons to travel a distance is fact. That distance/time relationship works out to 3000,000 K/sec every single time, in all frames. So, you lie when you insist there is no evidence of a photon transiting a distance, whether through complete ignorance(my bet), or evil intent. You insist on this ignorance, so even if it is ignorance driving this brain fart, it is self imposed ignorance. You simply do not know a dang thing about the subject.
As to your bogus challenge, it is impossible to show a photon in transit as a travelling photon is not detectable, else the Universe would be opaque, all we would see would be a fog of transiting photons. We cannot see ANY electro-magnetic energy in transit, it must be absorbed to be detected, meaning they are no longer transiting. So stick your dishonest challenge where the sun don't shine, that's where you got it from.
Grumpy
If I set up a laser to transmit information, coded information that a television will show as a picture, perhaps, and I transmit between the laser and the receiver, do photons(specific photons in a specific pattern)not travel between them. Of course they do. So you are simply and completely wrong. The fact that the photons are being sent and received is obvious(we receive EXACTLY the photons we sent, no doubt about their origin or final outcome). The fact is that every one of those photons are time delayed because of transit time. The time delay is directly proportional to the distance between transmitter and receiver, nothing else. So the deductive conclusions that the photons are moving between the two points at a set speed and that it takes time for photons to travel a distance is fact. That distance/time relationship works out to 3000,000 K/sec every single time, in all frames. So, you lie when you insist there is no evidence of a photon transiting a distance, whether through complete ignorance(my bet), or evil intent. You insist on this ignorance, so even if it is ignorance driving this brain fart, it is self imposed ignorance. You simply do not know a dang thing about the subject.
As to your bogus challenge, it is impossible to show a photon in transit as a travelling photon is not detectable, else the Universe would be opaque, all we would see would be a fog of transiting photons. We cannot see ANY electro-magnetic energy in transit, it must be absorbed to be detected, meaning they are no longer transiting. So stick your dishonest challenge where the sun don't shine, that's where you got it from.
Grumpy
The limitations of the scientific method.
One place the scientific method breaks down is the exploration of the human mind. The human mind is the most important tool of science since it is the center of observation, data analysis and theory synthesis. Yet the scientific method cannot be used to fully analyze this important consciousness tool, therefore there is no way to tell if consciousness is in calibration or biased.
Say you had a pH meter but no calibration solution to zero the meter. When you use this tool is will be biased, but with no way to determine the level of bias since this would beyond the method.
Let me give a basic example. We have all had dreams, since this is a natural phenomena of the human brain. It is natural because it is generated spontaneously by the brain and is outside our willpower. Dreams are composed of details. If you had a dream with details there is no way to prove these details using the scientific method. There no tools that can verify these details in situ, and because others can't reproduce your dream to verify that way. It is real since we have all experienced dreams, but would not be subject to detail proof, using the philosophy of science.
If we scale up from dreams, which are outside the range of the scientific method, how would deal with consciousness calibration, since that is even harder to deal with than dreams, with dreams beyond the scope of the method? The method relies upon consciousness, which is outside the scope of the method in terms of proper calibration.
Let me give an example. Particle accelerator colliders are used on the surface of the earth. What that means is the particles created are based on particles with very low environmental gravity compared to the center of a star. What they means is we are generating only part of a phase diagram connected to low gravity. This data may not be universal at extreme gravity. Brain calibration is important here since based on thousands of natural materials they all show phase diagrams, yet physicists assume phase lines.
Below is a phase diagram of water as a function of pressure and temperature. Depending on the position on the curve, the phase of the water can be different. In accelerators, gravity is constant at low gravitational force. This is similar to following the iso-bar (constant pressure line) say at 200 Mpa to the right with increasing temperature heading from II to III. Extreme gravity should be more like data near VI. If you calibrate the mind, you won't be so biased against natural trends of 2-D and 3-D diagrams in favor of 1-D. But since consciousness is beyond the method, we can't calibrate.
One place the scientific method breaks down is the exploration of the human mind. The human mind is the most important tool of science since it is the center of observation, data analysis and theory synthesis. Yet the scientific method cannot be used to fully analyze this important consciousness tool, therefore there is no way to tell if consciousness is in calibration or biased.
Say you had a pH meter but no calibration solution to zero the meter. When you use this tool is will be biased, but with no way to determine the level of bias since this would beyond the method.
Let me give a basic example. We have all had dreams, since this is a natural phenomena of the human brain. It is natural because it is generated spontaneously by the brain and is outside our willpower. Dreams are composed of details. If you had a dream with details there is no way to prove these details using the scientific method. There no tools that can verify these details in situ, and because others can't reproduce your dream to verify that way. It is real since we have all experienced dreams, but would not be subject to detail proof, using the philosophy of science.
If we scale up from dreams, which are outside the range of the scientific method, how would deal with consciousness calibration, since that is even harder to deal with than dreams, with dreams beyond the scope of the method? The method relies upon consciousness, which is outside the scope of the method in terms of proper calibration.
Let me give an example. Particle accelerator colliders are used on the surface of the earth. What that means is the particles created are based on particles with very low environmental gravity compared to the center of a star. What they means is we are generating only part of a phase diagram connected to low gravity. This data may not be universal at extreme gravity. Brain calibration is important here since based on thousands of natural materials they all show phase diagrams, yet physicists assume phase lines.
Below is a phase diagram of water as a function of pressure and temperature. Depending on the position on the curve, the phase of the water can be different. In accelerators, gravity is constant at low gravitational force. This is similar to following the iso-bar (constant pressure line) say at 200 Mpa to the right with increasing temperature heading from II to III. Extreme gravity should be more like data near VI. If you calibrate the mind, you won't be so biased against natural trends of 2-D and 3-D diagrams in favor of 1-D. But since consciousness is beyond the method, we can't calibrate.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure that's true. It cannot do it yet, but that doesn't mean it's theoretically impossible.
wellwisher
Non-sense. We study the human mind all the time using the scientific method. Don't mistake our problem understanding the COMPLEXITY of the mind with not being able to understand it in principle. We are developing tools and understanding that are orders of magnitude greater than just a few years ago, it's just going to take much longer to understand such a complex and interconnected system. Even psychology and pharmacology have made great strides in understanding what makes our minds tick, are both not sciences?
Grumpy
Non-sense. We study the human mind all the time using the scientific method. Don't mistake our problem understanding the COMPLEXITY of the mind with not being able to understand it in principle. We are developing tools and understanding that are orders of magnitude greater than just a few years ago, it's just going to take much longer to understand such a complex and interconnected system. Even psychology and pharmacology have made great strides in understanding what makes our minds tick, are both not sciences?
Grumpy
Then prove it... your claim not mine
until along comes the understanding of zero space with QM's Quantum entanglements and tunneling effects. You are stuck in an ancient 4 dimensional mind set. Get into the real world and include zero dimensional ism.
The fact that you can only refute by a call to ignorance, that being your own, is utterly amazing.
As to your bogus challenge, it is impossible to show a photon in transit as a travelling photon is not detectable, else the Universe would be opaque, all we would see would be a fog of transiting photons. We cannot see ANY electro-magnetic energy in transit, it must be absorbed to be detected, meaning they are no longer transiting. So stick your dishonest challenge where the sun don't shine, that's where you got it from.
Grumpy
Why would the universe be opaque if photons DON'T transit... duh!
btw how much energy is in transit universally at any given t=0? have a guess....
[to be included as part of the challenge just for fun.]