Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

Imagine the following discussion in a really bad sitcom:

A rational person: "Oh, there's that jelly I put in the fridge earlier. Set."
Inc: "What, you mean it is a collection of implements generally used together?"
RP: "No, not that meaning of 'set'."
Inc: "Oh, you mean the jelly is a group of people with similar interests or attributes."
RP: "No, don't be stupid."
Inc: "So, it's a home for a badger?"
RP: "What are you, some kind of idiot?"
Inc: "Well... I guess you mean the jelly is a mathematical collection of distinct entities."
RP: "Stop it. Take your meds."
Inc: "How about we say the jelly is a group of games that counts towards a match?"

Moral of the story: only an absolute knuckle-dragging buffoon or a worthless troll would pretend that all meanings of a word must apply simultaneously.

 

There might be something there. The OPer wants to measure the weight of a shadow. Fine; let’s see what’s there.

Suppose an object casts a shadow. I position myself some distance to the left or right of the object. Let’s agree on ten meters. I face the object at a 90 degree angle to the shadow cast. I see the object and I see a shadow behind or in front of the object.

I can “see through” the shadow and perceive whatever is on the other side of the “shadow”.

A shadow is not the absence of light.

There is less light in the shadow. It seems reasonable to assume that the weight would be less, as we can’t quite grasp that there exists any thing with no mass.

Anyone can asseverate that light has no mass and that person might flail about while proclaiming it: that does not make it true.

I hope this advances the discussion.

Oh the pain,
the pain...
​

 

Even if that assumption were correct, all it means is that light has weight, not shadow. I cant say that because I weigh less without an elephant on my head, that therefore the non-existence of head-elephants has weight of its own.

 

You are making the incorrect assumption that just because YOU see a Shadow does not mean that a Shadow exists.

If you were to look at your shadow cast upon the sidewalk on a sunny day then look at that same area using an IR-Detecting Camera....THERE WOULD BE NO SHADOW...as that area would be filled with Light of a different frequency....Infra Red Light.

The reality is that all a shadow is as we see it is when a material blocks visible light from being reflected off that material.

Light or Photons have ZERO MASS. This is proven as well as it must be as if it was not...imagine what untold Trillions of such Particles of Mass would do to your body impacting it at the speed of light...186,282 miles per second....your body would be vaporized...as well...so would be the Earth from the Light from the Sun.

AboveAlpha

 

I am very sure that I don’t understand that.

I didn’t equivocate. There is less light in the “shadow”, by definition.

Further, it’s quite obvious that a “shadow” is an area of less light as defined by objects arranged, light sources and their respective, relative strengths.

When we accuse a person of being afraid of his own shadow, we have perpetuated the myth that there is a thing.

One may hide within a shadow, but it does not exist as a thing. In this sense, the shadow is a bit like ‘Time’. That, too, doesn’t exist, though we have constructed a very large and complex edifice upon which the entirety of civilization is built.

I’m sure there is a thread about that somewhere in this forum. (tee hee)

I doubt that it is proven.

I will use the same logic to assert that ‘light’--whatever it is--has mass: The mass is so small, that it does not “vaporize” objects. Is that not what you have called “proven”?

Get out the duct tape and apply to your head.

Your proof consists of the observation that objects are not vaporized when light hits them at 186K+ miles per second. That is no proof that light has no mass.

I don’t care how many Astro-physicists you line up and have them wave their hands in the air. I’m going to assert that there are no things with no (zero) mass. My position is that it is small enough.

 

Like WOW! Dude, if you can prove that shadows don't exist, then you have simultaneously proven that every person who has the capability of vision are all suffering from hallucinations.

 

Why would I even consider disproving something that you believe even if that something is you ability to receive telepathic messages from extraterrestrial beings? I don't recall making any such challenge regarding such an ability. I likewise believe that you believe what you believe.

 

Well, there seems to be a discrepancy between your interpretation and the interpretation of others:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tak1.htm
"Take the mickey

Q From Lisa Russell-Pinson: While I was an exchange student in England, I heard the phrase to take the Mickey, meaning ‘to tease’. Do you know where this expression comes from? Does it have something to do with disdain for the Irish? Is it a euphemism for to take the (*)(*)(*)(*)?

A It is, yes. It dates from at least the 1930s in various forms; the oldest version recorded in print, from 1935, is to take the mike out of, as in this from a book with the title Cockney Cavalcade: “He wouldn’t let Pancake ‘take the mike’ out of him”. It’s said to have its origin in the rhyming slang to take the mickey bliss, that means to take the (*)(*)(*)(*). Mickey as a diminutive form of Michael has been common for many years, but how it got together with “bliss” is unknown, so we’ve no idea whether it is a reference to an Irish Mick. As the form first recorded is already elliptical, either the rhyming slang is actually older than the 1930s or some other source has to be looked for. In the 1950s a mock-genteel version to extract the Michael became briefly fashionable."

Oh Dear me.... who, oh who is telling the truth? Decisions, decisions.

"has to"? Who wrote that law, code, statute, rule, regulation, TOS? Where is it published?

 

Well, only a knuckle-dragging buffoon or a worthless troll would pretend he had the ability to write a scene for a sitcom. What relevance does your moronic scenario have toward the OP? Or is this post of yours simply a means of staying off-topic, or a means of harassment, or a means of thread disruption?

 

Because 'making fun of' someone and 'teasing' them are miles apart, right? http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/344000.html says it means "Tease or make fun of."

You tell me, you're the one who keeps telling people to provide irrefutable proof.

 

I guess you didn't comprehend the words "really bad" that I mentioned. And I'm glad you said "staying" off topic, at least that means I wasn't the one who took things off-topic. I wonder who might be guilty of that...

 

1) If an object with less light on it has less weight, can you then say that "lack of light" has weight?
2) If an object with less elephants on it has less weight, can you then say that "lack of elephants" has weight?

Yes, there is of course less light in the shadow, I didn't dispute that. It might be possible that the shadowed area therefore has less weight as well - I'm not 100% certain of that yet. But that doesn't mean that the shadow itself has weight. That's what I'm getting at.

 

Technically, that is the wrong way to think about it. (I figured you might say this, though.)

When light bounces off of an object and gets caught in your eye, your brain interprets what you see.

However, when your eyes receive no light, your brain has nothing to interpret -- hence the concept of "darkness."

A shadow is literally nothing; a lack of something -- the "standard condition" of the universe, so to speak. (This is why the "default" color of the universe is black.)

Think of a black hole: if you could get close enough to one to be able to flash a light on it, you would discover nothing but a black spot in your field of vision. Why? Well, it's because of the fact that a black hole has enough gravitational pull on that beam of light before it has a chance to reach your eyeball. The darkness that veils a black hole is literally a lack of light.

 

Are you suggesting human beings are incapable of writing a scene?

Man/women are who created the god that morons go to church for. That's the scene that all should sit and come to terms with.

I see it that most don't like you and just like to slap you around for being so......... what is the word that so many use to describe what your posts represent .......??? ...???? .. ah yes..................... 'obtuse'!

 

this whole post is a joke.

Keep the facts together; there is no darkness (lack of em (light)), anywhere between 2 points, anywhere in the universe.

you cannot even combine any elements, without light (em), all cases.

There is no such thing as complete 'darkness' (no light/em), within the universe.

What the problem is, is that many who are ignorant, have no idea what 'light' is in its form as electromagnetism (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes; the cross), but still rant.

 

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Leave your creationism at the door, please.

And the lack of light I mention is for the sake of argument.

 

what part is wrong? State your argument.

mankind is who is creating. ie... mankind creates 'words' and actually what created the 'gawds'

you had no argument in that 'lack of light' and I pointed out exactly why.

Did it bother you to learn or be corrected?

 

As I said before. Decisions, decisions... who is telling the truth. That is what happens when we turn to the opinions of other people to sort something out and find the truth of the matter. One opinion versus another opinion. Which is correct? Who is going to be the arbiter of 'truth'?

That is why I asked you. It was you who used the 'has to' remark. By what authority is that "has to" initiated and set up to affect all people?

 

Uncertainty must be your primary attitude today. "guess"... Meaning that you are uncertain or simply that you don't know.

That would take a little bit of research, because the non-theists participating in this thread have done a pretty good job of evading the question of the OP with all of the rationalizations (excuses) that they keep throwing in the conversation.

 

Are you denying that a shadow is a lack of light? Based on what I can decipher from your post, I'd have to think so.

Your whole comment reads like an emotion-fuelled new agist rant about something or other.

 

No.

I am telling you, that there is no lack of light anywhere within the universe. The postulate is that there is no place, anywhere within existence that is completely without light (em).

I hate liars that mislead people based on their own ignorance. Some believe people have a right to lie, and I know better!

 

Which way is the wrong way to think about it? Can you or can you NOT provide proof that shadows do not exist?

How does light "get caught in your eye"? What is being caught when "light gets caught in your eye"?

You mean if my eyes don't 'catch' any light? If the brain has nothing to interpret, then you must be dead. Otherwise the brain would interpret a lack of light catching going on.

So now you are saying that the standard condition of the universe is 'nothing' or a 'lack of something'?? This is really getting deep dude. So if the standard condition of the universe is nothing or a lack of something, then the universe is really empty and we are all suffering major hallucinations. How do we exist in this universe which has a standard condition of nothing or lack of something. Are we also nothing or a lack of something?

Why couldn't the default color be 'pink' considering that the standard condition is nothing?

Why think about something that is nothing... does that black hole exist in this universe which has a standard condition of nothing or lack of something.?

Quite understandable in this universe which has a standard condition of 'nothing' or lack of something.

WOW... Can I get enrolled at the school you attended?

 

Mankind can create concepts by the use of words. mankind created 'words' themselves.

That was an easy question that you knew the answer to.

not on your life. The world, did not create a gawd, mankind did with the use of words to describe the illusion.

Yes, the 'laws' per se have existed since the first man, even knew it was a self, an "I".

mankind created the words that are used to articulate what are believed to be 'laws'.

Again, you know that.

what? no idea what that means.

math aint 'doing' anything. It is a tool, created by man/women to describe with.

What is cool about math, is it is the universal language.

in a sense, that is kind of cool to reason.

You must have remembered what I said about words, entangle mass.

and we are of nature (the garden) itself. "WE" evolved from nature and are in fact, just a conscious life, within and of nature, realizing; learning of itself.

Kind of like what is happening to you. You are, a child of nature (god itself), learning of itself.

truth is perfect

Defining the process of nature, in math, can name nature, perfectly.

Does truth scare you?

 

No! I am suggesting that you are a poor example of someone who might desire to be such a writer. My opinion is based on the example you provided.

Can you provide irrefutable proof that those men and women who go to church for 'god' are morons?

Do you really think that I am concerned about your opinion or the opinion of others. If you do, you are mistaken.

 

Your opinion has little value, per my opinion.

sure..... They are wasting time (their awaken moments), to learn material information that misleads them on a path to a longer life. The proof can be noted that each could spend that hour (time in church), planting trees and supporting life to continue and live longer and doing 'good' for all (nature/existence itself/god), than wasting it, being lied too by a religious wingnut.

If all the people of the world, that waste their time being mislead by religion, were to spend that time feeding the unfortunate, there could be no world hunger and each would live longer by their use of empathy versus learning false truths and/or even begging to a gawd to fix their problems.

You follow me around this forum, just to learn.

And when your ego, enables you to make another stupid post, I use them as examples of ignorance.

You are learning, while I am learning and others are learning, all at the same time.