Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

Correct. That can be easily demonstrated by the use of a photovoltaic cell and a voltmeter. Cast a shadow on the PV cell and the voltage on the meter will diminish. Therefore, the existence of the shadow does in fact have physical effect which can be measured.

According to the demonstration above, the shadow has to be a physical thing in order to have a physical effect upon another physical object.

Your analogies above are akin to the demonstration I stated above.

Are you then suggesting that zero is a figment of the imagination? If you are, then so would those negative numbers that extend to the left side of the zero point of a linear scale.

What is your source of reference on that statement above?

So, zero (in your mind) is a known thing that does not exist, yet a shadow does exist but is not a thing? WOW!

Aren't all words creations of the imagination of man in an attempt to help describe the world around us?

You are wrong. I merely pointed out in the OP that the Bible does not give an answer to this question and was merely hoping that someone would be able to provide an answer that is seemingly not found in the Bible.

 

In my opinion, Photon are effected by what we call space, the undefined aspect of our universe. It seems obvious to me Gravity plays a role in this, yet does not fully explain it (see gravitational lensing), this is hoe science works.

One of the first things a scientist must know...is he/she will never be completely right. That is the beauty of exploration.

 

Put it on a scale if you can find it in that hole.

 

Where is your proof of claim?

 

Well, let's see

F= dp/dt = dp/dE dE/dt = (n d(pp))/(n d(Ep)) dE/dt = d(E/c)/dE P = P/c

where F is the force, p is the total momentum of the light, E is the total energy of the light, pp is the individual momentum of an average photon, Ep is the energy of that average photon, n is the total number of photons, c is the speed of light and P is the total power of the light.

For our purposes, we can also note that P/A = 120 W/m^2, so in^2 gives: P= 120 W in^2 /m^2 = 120 W 6.4516*10^(-4) so
F=P/c = 0.0774 / (3*10^ = 2.6*10^(-10) N.

Not a lot.

Edit: Corrections need to be made for reflection, sun intensity and so on, but this was never meant to be more than an approximation.

But does it appear in the physical world? As I see it, all the interesting things about shadows appear only once our minds have decided they are shadows. It is important for humans to interpret shadows as coherent objects because it makes us not have to worry about, for instance, statistics in our daily lives. However, since they're not physical in the same way as, for instance photons, they obey a different set of rules and those rules are quite far from what you'd expect from things like photons.

 

Ahh, but shadows do play an important role in the daily lives of such people as are found in the military and are participating in a warfare scenario. That important role is called concealment. So you see, shadows cannot be ruled out simply because we pay little attention to them. Here is another example: An artist painting a portrait leans heavily on the use of shadows to accent his creation. Shadows are almost religiously observed when there is an announcement made for an upcoming solar or lunar eclipse (a lot of people want to see that effect).

 

The earth casts a shadow through space as it orbits the sun.
We see this shadow when it hits the moon during an eclipse.
But that shadow keeps on going and while it is traveling at about the same speed (slightly faster) as the earth is traveling around sun when it hits the moon, at One Light year distance, it is traveling fast enough to make that complete revolution of a circle with a one light year radius, a 3.14 light year circumference, thus the shadow at that point is traveling 3.14 times the speed of light.

 

PV cells use sunlight to create a current. It's not the existence of the shadow that reduces current, it's the diminishing of light. The terms are interchangeable because they are one and the same, like saying a glass is half-full and half-empty but there is no physical thing called "empty". It's merely a term to describe the complete lack of something, So when someone asks you what's in a glass half-filled with milk, you don't say "It's got a half milk and half empty in it".

Try to see it this way. For instance, the PV cell has no current normally when there is no light on it. The light is on it. No it has current and is able to power the device. When light is removed, it has no power, it is not able to power the device anymore. The physical effect being applied or removed isn't that of the shadow, it's that of the light. It's not the shadow that has an effect, it's the light, and the changes you see are the changes that occur when light is applied and removed. To say that more clearly, in a dark room, what happens when I put a shadow on a PV cell? You probably don't even know how to imagine that, right? Because there is no such thing as a shadow.

Without relating zero to something that is actually real, like zero apples, zero oranges, zero air, show me a picture of zero.

Negative numbers are simply mathematical references we use to describe things. Like when we say that a battery has -25 volts, that doesn't mean that the battery has 25 volts less than 0 or no volts. I can't have -5 apples. The same with the zero example, you won't be able to show me a picture of negative anything. It doesn't exist.

Elementary school.

It's a known concept. Captain America is a known concept that does not exist. Camelot is a known concept that does not exist. Yet both effect reality in some way.

Correct.

My apologies then.

 

I seldom do this, as it is unkind and borders on breaking a few forum rules....so I will be as pleasant as possible:


You do not have the mental capacity to form an acceptable or logical debate.

 

The same can be said about Postclassical Physics. For example, in Entanglement. Just as with the primitive view of a shadow, particles only appear to affect each other instantaneously over a distance. The authoritarian irrationalists do not allow their students to look at it from a basic level, because they believe they have described the basic dimensional situation. However, this leads to what even Einstein, one of chief perpetrators, called "spooky science." Therefore, just as it would have been for anyone who tried to tell a caveman that a shadow doesn't really exist, there is the same postmodern taboo against explaining the appearances rationally if that necessitates saying something unorthodox. If there were not such a fear of authority, Entanglement would be rationally explained as the same particle going back and forth in and out of a fourth spatial dimension at the virtually instantaneous speed of the square of the speed that light travels in the apparently exclusive 3D world, which would come out to 6 light years a second.

 

Well, for starters, I would phrase the military situation differently. In theory, I'd prefer to say that the enemy fail to use light, which is physical, to see the concealed soldiers.

In a similar idea to earlier, I'd say that the painter's shadow only become relevant when interpreted by a human observer and thus, it is the interpretation of the human that makes the impact, not the shadow itself.

 

Even in language there is such a confusion. The English word black is cousin to words that in other languages mean "white" (blancus). Even in English we have blank and bleak. So emptiness is sometimes seen as an addition, sometimes as a subtraction. Similarly moon is related to minus, even though it is actually whole and only appears to be getting smaller.

 

You can drop the analogy of the milk glass, as it is not affected by the shadow like the PV cell is. As for the portion highlighted above. A shadow does not necessarily remove all of the light from a surface of a PV cell therefore the shadow cannot represent the "complete lack of something".

Are you sure about that?

You are now attempting to deny one of the very basic principle of semiconductor electronics. Are you sure that you want to go there? If the shadow diminishes the light source, the shadow is doing a physical function (work) and is therefore causing a reduction in the available light which in turn reduces the amount of current.

In a "dark room" you will have no means of creating a shadow.

Bad guess on the probability issue.

Next time you are outside under the open sky, look down at the ground around you and tell that dark area that seems to begin at your feet and tell that dark area that it does not exist.

Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?gs_rn...61,d.dmQ&fp=df10e9dee2efd1e8&biw=1024&bih=604

Such an uncanny observation on your part. What does a -25 volt mean? Go ahead now ,,, don't be shy.. tell me.

Really. Suppose that those apples were instead dollars. Tell the bank next time that there is an overdraft that the overdraft does not exist because you can't have a -5 dollars.

Of course a "negative anything" does not exist. As soon as you give definition of that "anything" it becomes a positive else it does not exist. So you agree then that all those scientific equations that require the use of negative numbers cannot be real,,, as there is no such thing as a negative?

any particular grade level and or particular class. Perhaps it was on the playground.

So, now you are admitting that things that do not exist have the ability to affect reality. That is very interesting. I am almost wanting to agree with you on that notion.

Wow! we actually agreed on a point.

Not necessary but accepted as a matter of courtesy.

 

While this thread is mental masturbation and might be fun for some, one should realize the word shadow in link in the OP is used several different ways and in fact it in the original Bible text are different words....so..........

 

Partially true... remove the shadow(s) and the observer would likely have a different interpretation. Therefore, the shadow does have an important role. But hey... ain't perspective a witch?

 

I will comment on your observation about the context used from the varying definitions found in the Bible. True there are different words used and consequently different definitions.. however, most of the readers on this thread have already grasped which form was referred to by the OP. Thanks for the input though.

 

I suppose this sums up your whole reply.

I suppose it comes down to what we believe, then. I don't believe a shadow is a physical thing.

 

Who asked for a debate? Not me? I am simply looking for an acceptable answer to the question posted in the OP. So where you are coming from is (in my interpretation) the pond where people like to ride in a boat with their baited lines hanging over the edge of the boat while slowly traversing the body of water, hoping that a fish will get caught on the hook that is on the line.

 

Absolutely, I can't say that shadows are not real, there is a lack of light in them. However, the interpretation of shadows that humans make are not due to shadows being shadows, but due to shadows looking like something a human have seen somewhere else. As soon as it is a human's interpretation of something, new ideas about coherency, physicalness, speed and so on can be introduced without having basis in the actual properties of the thing they are looking at.

 

If that is what you want to believe or not believe (as the case may be), then that is your prerogative.

 

But when the observer saw the shadow, the shadow was generated by something and therefore was real in the moment that it was seen. As an example.. I may be looking down at the ground, and a huge shadow goes by suddenly. I look up and see nothing but hear the sound of a plane or even no sound at all, then the questions arise about what created the shadow. Nevertheless, the shadow was there and I did see it.

 

Actually an object in shadow will weigh LESS than an object in light due to light pressure. The light pressure of the sun's rays directly overhead on a clear day is approx 4.6 µPa/square meter for a perfectly black surface and twice that for a reflective surface. Do the arithmetic conversion to determine the pressure difference between one square inch in shadow and one square inch exposed to the sun.

 

Hey Zo0tie... that is a cool response.... forgive my lack of learning in this area, but what is a µPa? You also mentioned arithmetic conversion.... is there any conversion programs available that would handle such units of measure? Seriously... I really appreciate that straight forward answer.

 

Just thought I could do this before I answer my own one. µPa is micropascal, a millionth of a pascal. A pascal is the measure for pressure, one Newton (force) per meter squared (area).

Google is quite good at conversions.

 

Thanks Swensson... I will check it out and see what Google offers. I appreciate that input also.