I had to get high on caffiene and make more shit up.
You are right - I started this, because I did not like Einstein’s phrase - simpleminded me. “You should not mention your Creator’s name in vain” (or something). Curvation=beautiful. YES in many places, but can the Dear Lord come up with something more perfect. YES. I oppose to Einstein because of this. According to my Bible Einstein was wrong and I’m not that religious…
What’s imperfect about it?
“That’s for me to know and you to find out”. But I’ll tell it to you anyway: The Dear Lord made fun of Einstein - it was just an optical error.
I’ll bite. What was an optical error?
Isn’t your argument for an “optical error” simply that the curvature of light doesn’t conform to your personal notion of an aesthetically “perfect” universe? If that’s the case, then you need to at least explain what “perfect” means, and why the curvature of light would not conform to “perfection.”
I mean, that’s barely scratching the surface of the fallacies embedded in your thesis, but at leats begin by defining your terms.
Actually, your whole angle sounds like witnessing to me more than anything.
Katunari, you really have no idea what the photoelectric effect is, do you?
Actually, let me clarify my question:
Katunari, what, exactly, are you claiming to be an optical error?
I’m not even a student of Physics, but does all this have something to do with light?
This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong. It’s just nonsense.
I think that’s the bottom line.
Yes, though in practice there are enough photons from a light source that you have to get extremely far away for this to happen.
My intuition says that you could test this relatively easily. To get one to million photons you need a gram of hydrogen in a vacuum. Then you add some heath and get one to million photons. At a range of one meter there would be more totally dark places than light. Well? Spectrum?:smooth:
Okay, but as it stands, the Good Lord did make the Universe as Einstein worked it out. If He actually did make it differently (more complex or more subtle) then He still made it in such a way that Einstein’s theories describe what we can see (so far).
If there are further profundities to be described, then these will build on Einstein’s work, or show that Einstein was not able to see far enough. It will not invalidate Einstein’s theories – we would then know that Einstein’s equations only describe a part of reality.
Just as the Lord could hav emade a better fruit than the Strawberry, but He hose not to, so the Lord could have made a non-Einsteinian Universe, but He seems to have chosen not to do so.
I’m not that religious.
Your intuition is correct. Unfortunately, our measuring devices find it very hard to slice time small enough to get an *instantaneous *impression of where photons are. The next one will hit right next to the one we are measuring almost immediately, and because they splash energy into the detecting device when they are captured, they tend to smear.
Yes, we get that. We get that because you tell us you don’t understand the basic vocabulary of the subject, that you don’t read or believe any of the textbooks on the subject, that you think scientists accept theories based on blind belief, that your religious convictions outweigh scientific evidence even though you aren’t religious, that physicists don’t know how to do experiments, and that your personal feelings about the universe ought to be true no matter what others say.
What we don’t get is why you keep posting questions here if you have no intention of listening to any of the responses.
As Angua will no doubt be happy to attest to, X-ray astronomers quite frequently make observations of distant objects that involve fewer than one photon per second plunking onto a quite macroscopic detector.
('Course, if you’re not okay with the particle nature of light then you probably think that the CCDs in those telescopes are just making up their data. Not to mention the ones in digital cameras.)
My point of view is that light has effect only with respect to the normal to the surface. If you use parabolic lenses it will result only as a collision of two surfaces - a light wave and a lens. But there is more to it. That’s why I came up with the intensity of light as a square of distance. Nobody argued with that. “Bunch of photons” - you quess what I think of that…
One photon per second? I would kill for a count rate of one photon per second*! ::checks current dataset:: I have a whole bunch (technical term there 
) of galaxy clusters here with count rates of about 0.05 photons/s.
And guess what? I can get spectra, images, and the whole shebang from my 0.05 photons/s. Provided, of course, that I stare at my galaxy cluster for long enough.
*Actually, I probably wouldn’t. It’d lead to too many photons to actually count and just annoy me.