@metal-brain saidSo you have no sensible answer to the question so you give a stupid one.
Ask the electron.
Compton scattering shows light is made of particles.
@metal-brain saidPhotons are both particles and waves and with potential red shift and blue shift Doppler effects and none of those things are mutually exclusive.
Nope. Light is a wave. Red shift and blue shift Doppler effect.
We have already proved to you they are particles.
Explain Compton scattering if photons are not particles. If you cannot do that then you have no argument; Photons must be both particles and waves just like science says they are.
@humy said"We have already proved to you they are particles."
Photons are both particles and waves and with potential red shift and blue shift Doppler effects and none of those things are not mutually exclusive.
We have already proved to you they are particles.
No, you havn't. Assertions are not proof.
Science said there is no aether and now we have the graviton theory and lots of aether theories by different names like superfluid. Calling it something different does not mean it is not aether theory. A medium is a medium.
Excuse me for not taking your word for what science is and isn't. Science is evolving. You need to evolve with it.
@metal-brain saidOne proof is Compton scattering (there are others).
"We have already proved to you they are particles."
No, you havn't. Assertions are not proof.
Compton scattering is not just an "Assertion" but rather an actual experimental proof. Here it is yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
"...The effect is significant because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon.
...Thus, light behaves as if it consists of particles
..."
This above is the proof. If you say that isn't proof; explain how its not a proof...
17 Dec 19
@humy saidWhere does it say that? I didn't notice any proof at all. Assertions and proof are two different things. Don't you realize that?
One proof is Compton scattering (there are others).
Compton scattering is not just an "Assertion" but rather an actual experimental proof. Here it is yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
"...The effect is significant because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon.
...Thus, light behaves as if it consists of particles
..."
This above is the proof. If you say that isn't proof; explain how its not a proof...
17 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
Because for you if light can be shown as being half particle and half wave it would mess up your favorite thesis, that Einstein was just another plagiarist with nothing to say.
17 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidStop putting false word in my mouth. I am asking a good question. It isn't my fault you don't understand the relativistic Doppler effect well enough to explain it.
@Metal-Brain
Because for you if light can be shown as being half particle and half wave it would mess up your favorite thesis, that Einstein was just another plagiarist with nothing to say.
@metal-brain saidYou deny the proof of the experimental result and just say its an "assertion"?
Where does it say that? I didn't notice any proof at all.
The experimental result is the proof because it shows photons are particles -exactly which part of that do you pretend to not comprehend?
Stop pretending to us you are so completely stupid that you cannot read.
Do you deny that experiment was done? Yes or no?
If no, is whatever it proves just "assertion"?
If no, do you deny it proves photons are particles?
If yes, explain you alternative interpretation of the result that shows they might not be particles...
17 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
The word relativistic doesn't mean anything in doppler shift.
Doppler shift in any electromagnetic wave like TV over the airwaves, say 1 ghz or 1 MILLION ghz, they all react to doppler shift and at one km per hour to 298,000 km/second. They all shift a certain percentage of their wavelength given a certain velocity between source and receiver. The receiver can be a telescope or if the light is strong enough, it can be a human. At 20,000 odd Km/second a given wave is changed by ten percent, ten percent of c. It doesn't matter if it is a radio wave at 1 meter wavelength (300 megahertz) or 1000 Nanometers (IR band) at 20,000 Km/second they all undergo a ten percent change in wavelength and thus frequency. In the case of 1 meter wavelength, 10% means it is either a 330 megahertz signal at the receiver or a 270 megahertz signal at the receiver even though the source is putting out a solid 300 megahertz RF wave.
The same thing EXACTLY happens if it is 1000 NANOmeter wave, Infrared, if the receiver or the source is moving at 20,000 km/second, the receiver will see that signal at either 900 nm or 1100 nm depending on approaching or receding. 900 Nm if it is approaching or 1100 Nm if receding. It's as simple as that and it is no different at 99% of c. This is not a relativistic effect.
17 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidThen c is not constant. If it was there would be no Doppler effect.
@Metal-Brain
The word relativistic doesn't mean anything in doppler shift.
Doppler shift in any electromagnetic wave like TV over the airwaves, say 1 ghz or 1 MILLION ghz, they all react to doppler shift and at one km per hour to 298,000 km/second. They all shift a certain percentage of their wavelength given a certain velocity between source and receiver. The receiver ca ...[text shortened]... eding. It's as simple as that and it is no different at 99% of c. This is not a relativistic effect.
@metal-brain saidNo; c is a constant and there is a Doppler effect and so far you haven't ever explained to us what you think the contradiction between both those things being true. That's because there is no such contradiction. If you deny this then why don't you just tell us all what you think the contradiction between both those things being true? Or are you just trolling?
Then c is not constant. If it was there would be no Doppler effect.
18 Dec 19
@humy saidIf what you say is true you are not explaining it right. Sound has a Doppler effect because sound is not constant. An approaching train has a higher frequency because of it. This happens because sound waves are not constant, not despite it. An approaching star has a blue shift which is also a higher frequency. If c is constant there should be no frequency change.
No; c is a constant and there is a Doppler effect and so far you haven't ever explained to us what you think the contradiction between both those things being true. That's because there is no such contradiction. If you deny this then why don't you just tell us all what you think the contradiction between both those things being true? Or are you just trolling?
@metal-brain saidNo, sound has a Doppler effect because its always travels through a medium that limits its speed and sound consists of that medium moving in a wave motion and that medium may be either stationary or moving relative to the sound. Light doesn't. There is no stationary ether to vary c. Although there might exist another type of ether that doesn't vary c and is perfectly consistent relativity, but that's all besides the point.
Sound has a Doppler effect because sound is not constant.
18 Dec 19
@humy said"No, sound has a Doppler effect because its always travels through a medium that limits its speed and sound"
No, sound has a Doppler effect because its always travels through a medium that limits its speed and sound consists of that medium moving in a wave motion and that medium may be either stationary or moving relative to the sound. Light doesn't. There is no stationary ether to vary c. Although there might exist another type of ether that doesn't vary c and is perfectly consistent relativity, but that's all besides the point.
That is clearly false. You just described a constant and sound is not constant. You are completely clueless. Stop trolling until you have a grasp on the obvious.