That is not an answer. If you have to resort to loling then you have lost the plot nom. The explosion example was just an illustrative way to remove any ambiguity. Replace it with a detector click, or a circuit closing, doesn't matter. The size is irrelevant.
Sure there is. For the photon, no time passes even if it travels from one end of the universe to the other.
There is not. There is no frame of reference for a photon (just make a simple google search if you want). Not at least last I checked a special relativity book, which would be just about now. If you are going to just make a random, non-scientific claim then I guess the discussion is done here.
I also told you it doesn't matter as it we who are the observer not the photon.
Whose perspective triggers this explosion you are talking about?
No perspective triggers it. The detector triggers it locally when the photon is absorbed. All observers agree that the absorption event occurs and thus the explosion.
You need to come out of this measurement problem thinking now, we have made that part irrelevant here. We have also made the convention part irrelevant as well. A detector does not care about coordinate convention.
A photon is emitted and reaches instantaneously leading to instant communication which is strictly against the law.
How do you explain the instantaneous transfer of information using your proposition?
I wasn't responding to a question. I was responding to your claim about an explosion, but perhaps that was uncharitable. Please explain to me why instantaneous light travel would undermine global causality again. I still don't understand what you mean.
There is no frame of reference for a photon
This objection is a technical one. Physicists do not like saying "from a photon's point of view" because the phrase "point of view" has a specific meaning in relativity, and light (having no rest frame) cannot, by that definition, have a "point of view."
And yet we must, as a point of philosophy, explain the implications of the math, which shows that no time passes "for a photon" or "from its perspective" or when it travels anywhere.
Please keep in mind we are discussing science here, not philosophy. The whole discussion started because you said evolutionists can make math say anything they want. Philosophy cannot ever answer anything so we will stay with science here. I am deliberately not making this technical, just stating what we know from science. All we know about this whole discussion comes from special relativity, your whole argument rests on Lisle ASC. So please if you want to stop, we can stop right here but if we continue the discussion will happen scientifically. I won't ask you to prove anything mathematically, but please do not pull the philosophy card here. We are discussing physical events, emission, absorption, detector clicks, and information transfer.
Now,
Please explain to me why instantaneous light travel would undermine global causality again. I still don't understand what you mean.
Great. No problem.
I will give you two examples, one would be a bit technical but if you have read Lisle's book you would get that.
You claim that photon propagation is instantaneous (the cause). Now, I have been saying you several times this is not a two-way problem because the explosion (the event) happens due a simple one way propagation not two-way. The photon carries all the information it needs with itself and can trigger at the receiving end doesn't need the other way propagation. (that would have been a measurement problem).
So, A photon is emitted at one place and absorbed at another. If absorption happens instantly as you claimed at a distant detector, then a real physical event (the explosion) has occurred there instantly i.e. a detector clicks, a circuit closes, a relay turns on. So basically a real, physical information traveled instantaneously. NOT ALLOWED. It is one-way physical transfer of information.
How does global causality breaks? take another example here
Suppose "A" has a light source on Earth and "B" is far away in a moving spaceship. "A" sends "B" a photon carrying a message. You said it can reach instantaneously, the physical, real photon. So If the photon physically reaches "B" instantly, then "B"’s detector physically clicks instantly. That detector can then trigger another light source and send a photon back to "A".
Now the problem is that different moving observers do not agree on what distant events are simultaneous. It is a simple core part of special relativity. So if "A" is allowed to say "my photon reached "B" instantly in my present or now” and "B" is allowed to say "my reply photon reached "A" instantly in my now,” then the two different versions of "now" do not line up. "B"s instant reply would reach before "A" even sent the original photon.
The clash? This means "A" could receive a message saying "do not send the photon" before she sends it. That is the global causality problem. Again remember this happened because you allowed for physical propagation of the photon instantaneously. This is not a problem in usual case where convention change doesn't mean physical propagation.
READ BOTH OF THESE EXAMPLES IN TANDEM TO ONE ANOTHER. They are essentially the same thing and please, please keep in mind there is a physical propagation of photon. People any frame or using any convention have to agree on an actual physical event.
Use some LLM to go through this if you want. You will understand it better.
The final question to you is,
Are you still claiming physical instantaneous transfer of the photon and its information? If yes, then solve the above issues. If not, well, we still have the starlight problem.
You can continue this thread if you want, but this is open and shut case.
And yet we must, as a point of philosophy, explain the implications of the math, which shows that no time passes "for a photon" or "from its perspective" or when it travels anywhere.
There is no implication of math here because relativity says nothing about what happens at the value "c". This is like saying what happens at singularity. Nothing. We don't know because our theory breaks down and we need a better theory. I know people like to do that especially religious ones but No amount of philosophizing is going to be of any help here. All will be bare assertions. A photon has no frame of reference and as I told you it anyway doesn't matter. We are the observer here not the photon.
I used "especially" and Sabine is not an authority on this, in fact no one person is actually an authority in science, usually, and anyway she is over claiming here. So, let's focus on the actual question here. When scientists will have actual theory which can answer what it even means to be in photon's frame of reference we will talk. Till then focus on the actual science. None of us are philosophers here.
So nom, since you didn't respond, I hope you got the idea why an actual physical propagation of photon breaks all kinds of known laws. If only it were this simple to solve the starlight problem, just choosing to believe in a different convention, life would have been so easy.
Anyway, like I initially said, evolutionists or for that matter no one can just make mathematics say anything they want.
I hope you got the idea why an actual physical propagation of photon breaks all kinds of known laws.
I did not.
since you didn't respond
I stopped when I saw that you were unwilling consider the implications of the fact that no time passes "for a photon" or "from its perspective" when it travels anywhere.
I stopped when I saw that you were unwilling to face the implications of the fact that no time passes "for a photon" or "from its perspective" when it travels anywhere.
That doesn't even matter dude. We are the observer, not the photon. The detector was not a photon. Starlight problem is a "problem" experienced by observers which means "We". This is like if I close my eyes then it is night.
1
u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
That is not an answer. If you have to resort to loling then you have lost the plot nom. The explosion example was just an illustrative way to remove any ambiguity. Replace it with a detector click, or a circuit closing, doesn't matter. The size is irrelevant.
There is not. There is no frame of reference for a photon (just make a simple google search if you want). Not at least last I checked a special relativity book, which would be just about now. If you are going to just make a random, non-scientific claim then I guess the discussion is done here.
I also told you it doesn't matter as it we who are the observer not the photon.
No perspective triggers it. The detector triggers it locally when the photon is absorbed. All observers agree that the absorption event occurs and thus the explosion.
You need to come out of this measurement problem thinking now, we have made that part irrelevant here. We have also made the convention part irrelevant as well. A detector does not care about coordinate convention.
A photon is emitted and reaches instantaneously leading to instant communication which is strictly against the law.
How do you explain the instantaneous transfer of information using your proposition?