Leon1961

Correct, you cannot treat a material as having a distinct edge. It is clear to me that my original text gives the impression that I treat them as having a distinct edge, but that is not intended. Anyway, like I tried to explain before, it is not relevant for my original answer if there is a distinct edge or not. What is relevant is that there is difference in propagation depending on the medium. Yes they are behaviors of waves. My point is that exhibiting behavior of X is not evidence of being X. Take a Zebra for example. They have an interference pattern on their sides, but that clearly was not caused by a wave. Or like I said before: if I bark like a dog then I exhibit dog behavior, but that does not make me a dog. Besides, in this case photons also exhibit particle properties which waves do not, which is a clear indication that photons cannot “be” waves. The problem here is that in the context of “particle behavior”, “particle” means solid ball or implies solidness or means something else that does not also exhibit wave behavior, while in most other cases “particle” is an object that also exhibits wave behavior. So, I will replace “particle” with “solid ball” to make a clear distinction between these two. But you must read “particle” when I write “solid ball”: Yes, exhibiting solid ball properties is evidence of solid ball behavior but that is not evidence of being a solid ball. In this case photons also exhibit wave properties which solid balls do not, which is a clear indication that photons cannot “be” solid balls.

1: About Heisenberg: Agreed, half way in and half way out is not something that can ever be said to exist. But exactly how much is inside or outside a certain medium is not relevant for my answer and I am not writing a scientific paper here, so I (over?) simplified things. 2: This is not about me wanting anything. All I am saying is that exhibiting properties of something is not evidence of “being” something. In other words: considering a beam of light as a wave is an unfounded assumption. Mind you, with that I am not saying that light consists of particles because exhibiting particle properties is not evidence of being a particle also.

The priority of these pharmaceuticals is to make money. So you can be assured that if they have a cure that they can make money with that they will want us to know about it. Besides, there are real people working there. People like the rest of us. People that take pride in their jobs. People that do not like a conspiracy any more than the rest of us. So, I do not believe in a conspiracy for one second. But perhaps I am just an optimist.

A photon propagates in a certain manner and this manner of propagation depends on both the photon and the medium in which it propagates. When the medium changes, the manner of propagation changes. A1: There is no acceleration in the sense of gaining or losing energy. There is only interaction with the medium causing the manner of propagation to change. A2: This change happens instantaneous, but only to the part of the photon that crosses from one medium to the next. A3: When it is half way in, one half propagates differently than the other half. A4: Light can be considered to have wave properties. This does not mean that light can be considered as a wave any more than I can be considered to be a dog when I exhibit dog properties when I bark like a dog. In any case, the part of the beam in one medium propagates differently to the part of the beam in another medium. In all cases, energy is preserved.

Seriously, I come across as hating to you? I can assure you, I have no emotion of any kind towards anti-science people. I just let them be and hope they come to their senses for their sake. I do not care either way.

Interesting, since when did it become my problem that these people do not understand? It is their problem and their defeat. Not mine.

Trying to explain to these people why they are wrong is futile. These anti-science people all seem to know that they are intelligent enough to be able to understand anything. Because of that they automatically assume that if something does not make sense to them that it must be wrong. Trying convince them otherwise comes across to them as a personal insult to their intelligence and will only make things worse. Not to mention that I have no doubt that there are also a lot of them that are only trolling. The good thing about the internet is that everybody has access to it. The bad thing about the internet is that everybody has access to it.

Concepts like position, velocity, mass and size are macro concepts. To put it simply, they do not exist at the subatomic scale. They are so-called emergent properties from something that nobody fully understands yet. In any case, we know that it is not possible to understand or describe what happens at the subatomic scale in these kinds of concepts because if it was then we would have figured this out a long time ago. I think we should give past and current generations of scientists some credit.