We did this dance and I showed you that effect is real but the heat up is caused by the loss of total photons which become the heat.
What we see is identical energy photons come out the glass and missing photons which equal the heat. What we never see is photons coming out with less energy or as you would call them tired.
On the assumption that we have already done this dance, my response would most likely have been the same - when the atoms of the medium absorb the photons it is my understanding that the atoms then emit their own photons.
I see nothing there which indicates that the atoms totally absorb some of the photons.
If the increased temperature of the medium is due to a loss of total photons then the emitted light would incur a reduction in
intensity.
In order for us to see that the emitted photons are of the same frequency as the original beam we would have to determine the frequency of both beams however the difference between them would be minimal to the point of being virtually indeterminable until we start talking about the considerable number of free atoms of matter scattered over vast tracts of space.
We have no way of determining the frequency of light emitted by distant stars before it traverses the distance to our location ergo we cannot claim conclusive evidence either way.
BTW what was the reasoning behind a nuetron fired at the earths core being faster than light?
(Incidentally, it is only faster than a horizontally emitted beam of light not faster than a beam that is traveling in the same direction.)
When a beam of sub-atomic particles is accelerated horizontally much of the accelerative force is required for no other reason than to overcome the particles' increasing relativistic mass whereas if the beam is projected vertically the planet's gravitational field is aiding the acceleration.
