Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

Then we are on a level playing field with regard to that sentiment.

That does not constitute irrefutable proof. It only constitutes your personal opinion regarding what you deem to be the time wasted. Also, you have brought to the surface another claim that must have irrefutable proof to validate its truthfulness. That claim is referencing "being lied too by a religious wingnut". You need to provide irrefutable proof that the things said to the congregation by the pastor/preacher/priest/ etc. are in fact 'lies'. The requirement of irrefutable proof can be waived by an admission on your part that the claim was not a claim but a mere personal opinion.

All speculation on your part, as there is no way for you to irrefutably prove any of those claims.

I follow you around? Go back to the OP and see who started this thread. Now who is following who?

Stupid posts such as yours where you claim that I follow you around when you are in fact in the thread that I started... LOL.

Learning how silly you can be... making claims that are self defeating... "follow me around"... Yeah right. LOL.

 

If they feed people for that hour, I can witness actions that are supporting life to continue.

cant witness a belief but I can witness, that in most every church I have personally been in. I have heard, more false witness and lies, then at a political debate.

So I can and did offer, irrefutable proof.

I did

Jesus is not the messiah, Christ........ by his claim (per bible) and mine (per fact).

So 'church' as implying 'christian' has been defined by my experience. And the words used calling jesus 'Christ/messiah' I heard with my own ears and the fact is that he is/was not that one the world is awaiting since none of what is written to occur by prophecy found in theology, has occurred.

You can believe jesus is Christ, but that can only occur by lying to the self, or having such a reduced amount of information, that the terms, words, prophecies and comprehension of what 'Christ-messiah' is, was/is never been learned. For example: IF a 5 yr old is told that mickey mouse is Christ and god, far more children would want to go to church and they would have no idea the difference of your, belief than of mickey being messiah other than, they would perhaps have more fun.

I have lots of opinions and points of view. Proof is something that takes integrity to sustain.

I have the integrity, of witnessing what is real over the idiot, who will witness what someone else claims, and call it true. For example: idiots claiming jesus is the messiah, are morons because they can experience for themselves that what was claimed of messiah, did not occur now or ever with or without jesus. Then combine that with Jesus' own charge (Matt 16;20) and there is proof, unequivocal, that jesus is not what the morons of churches claim.

again, all of integrity and honesty do them statements make sense, to everyone. Not just me, nor my opinion.

sure I can..... I know man is capable of combining to move mountains. As I have witnessed such in the creation of dams.

the speculation is that man could circumvent world hunger by spending the time to do so, is that I know man is capable, while someone like you is simply dividing mankind from being capable, to the reality, that world hunger does exist.

I am reading what is available and you so happen to open this thread. but like this chain or the numerous other chains of debate you and I have had, it is easy to see what I have claimed is true.

the stupid is when you argue

it's ok,

I aint flattered

I see most of it as sad. You're in writing, fighting against the last person on the earth you'd want to.

 

Whether photons have mass or not is moot. Shadows are the absence of light. It is like if you put a deflated balloon on a scale and tried to weigh how much air was NOT in it.

 

Unfortunately for you, even a deflated balloon would still have trace amounts of air in it and subsequently could be weighed with a scale that has great enough sensitivity.

 

Yes, but you are still not measuring how much air is NOT in the balloon, only the air that is in it. Same as measuring the photons in a shadow, you can only measure how many photons are there.

 

I didn't give a date either.

But I be such the prick!

based on what?
Is world peace, in order.

Did the stars fall from the sky?

Are the liars, keep their f'ing mouth shut?

No matter who believes what, unfortunately you've been mislead.

not my fault

I agree....

Irrefutable: jesus did not have the name of god. I do.

Are you calling my standards better than most or are you suggesting that my standard should become basic common sense?

the jerk of any circle are the few that have to lie to themselves, to sustain their beliefs.

It's actually sad to watch






.

 

Can you measure all the air in our environment that is not in the balloon? An absurdity on your part. Not true regarding the photons... per the specifications in the OP, there was a given area under scrutiny and a specific light source and specific object of interference located a specific distance from the illuminated object. There are enough parameters supplied to give any knowledgeable scientist the information needed to make calculations. Your problem (as well as mine --pointed out early on) is that you cannot perform the necessary calculations to provide an intellectually honest answer.

 

Did I say that you did give a date?

If you say so and you believe it then have at it.

My belief and the faith that has been given to me.

Gee, I guess that date has not arrived yet, has it? Like you said... 'still waiting'.

Bee, I guess that date has not arrived yet, has it? Like you said.... 'still waiting'.

There you go, talking about people that you are too much of a coward to name.

Provide irrefutable proof that I have been "mislead".

What is not your fault?

Cool.

Provide irrefutable proof of your claim stated immediately above.

By your standards, I am calling your standards a bag of puke.

Then that would be naming you.

Yes! It is sad to watch you as you get more and more emotional.... so emotional that you have to refer to people as liars and then be such a coward that you won't name who those liars are.






.[/QUOTE]

 

All you are doing is measuring the weight of the photons is a specific area, defined by a shadow. A shadow is merely a regions of less light than the surrounding area. In fact a shadow on a sidewalk in the noonday sun is actually brighter than the same side walk under full moonlight. So put side by side, a sidewalk illuminated by the moon would appear as a shadow compared to a sidewalk in a noontime shadow. Since this is all relative, the weighing of a shadow is meaningless.

 

At the highlighted text, you admit that there is a difference in the amount of energy being supplied to the two areas. Therefore, the weight of the shadow could be measured in terms of energy being delivered to that area in comparison to the energy being delivered to the fully lighted area. The result of the calculations should reveal a negative amount of energy delivered to the shadowed area as compared to the energy delivered to the lighted area.

Perhaps meaningless to you and your perspective... however... the OP has submitted a valid question that requires scientific input and proof... But for the folks on this forum to simply submit their beliefs regarding the same is not proof of anything but their beliefs.

 

Ok, so what you are really asking is the difference of energy between two areas, in units of weight based on the mass of a photon. Unfortunately you don't have enough data. What is the size of the room we are measuring in? What is the albedo of the walls? Is there any other objects present? If so, what are their albedos? Once all the parameters are known, if is a relatively easy calculation. In fact scientists use this kind of calculation all the time to figure out theoretical limits of solar panels, chlorophyll, etc. They just don't usually express it in terms of weight. If I was better at mathematics and physics I could do it for you.

 

Expressing an energy delta in terms of weight is like measuring distance by the halflife of uranium. It's stupid, pointless, misleading and generally a bad idea.

 

No.

given to you? You learned the words and beliefs from men/women and believe them.

Not even jesus was 'given' sheet. Like all of mankind, you have to learn. ie.... even where to find your first meal, is learned.

no one is giving you the name of god, either!

So you now have admitted that messiah has not come, because you and the rest of the world are 'still waiting'.

ie..... it was not jesus (you are still waiting, per your own words)

did you call me a coward?

At least I have the yahoos to know that 'still waiting' means you are still waiting too and just have a hard time admitting it.

as for the coward comment, isn't that against the rules of the forum?

i'll await your judgment.

your own words. You are still waiting just like the majority on the earth, for the prophecies, to come thru to share who is actually the name holder, that enable mankind during the war of wars between the good and the bad.

ps....... liars are the bad guys.

you being mislead. That aint my fault. And since you are here and now, alive, in this generation, then you like myself, have had the opportunity to do the actual homework to make sure you know what you are talking about before posting as a false witness.

ie.... you are equal to me, but you just don't hold the same level of personal responsibility as I do

it aint my fault that you choose not to be humble to truth.

Because he never enabled mankind to know themselves.

That is the irrefutable proof. The guy them prophecies were talking about, has the name of god and enables mankind to overcome the ignorance of the previous BS and become capable of living forever, and know it.

Nothing to debate on that claim.

that makes no sense.

did you call me a coward again? And in writing!?!?!?

Ouch!

I bet your judgment day is ugly but I cant make you follow the commands, nor even follow the rules of the forum.

ie....... what ever happens to you, is your own damn fault.

 

I don’t recall anything being asserted about the weight of objects. Will you link to that?

I do recall the subject of the weight of the areas that contain light but no objects--other than the assumed water-vapour and such things.

I do believe that you have made the attempt to have it both ways. This is very bad. I’ll explain, if necessary.

 

Areas (or perhaps more correctly, volumes) do not and cannot have weight in and of themselves. The objects inside those areas are the only things that can have weight. There can be no meaningful discussion of weight without discussion of mass. And anything that has mass is a physical object.

I don't believe I am trying to have anything both ways, so perhaps you should indeed explain why you think I am.

 

I made an error here:

I thought your “even if that” referred to my assertion that there is less light in a shadow--my error.

About having it both ways, here are the words in question:

You want to be on the correct side with respect to the relative weights between lighted areas, but you deny that there is weight in the areas. Capeesh?

You did it right there. Do you drink while you type?

I’m only asking...

​

 

What part of "no information was provided by the link" was missed? Admin "announcements, calendars and so on" doesn't provide any information relevant to the question.

 

We're still left with the fact that trying to explain a scientific and mathematical answer to a question to someone that doesn't understand either science or math is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig and is a waste of our time.

 

No, I don't deny that there is mass, and therefore weight, inside those areas. I deny that any of that weight comes from being in shadow, that's all.

 

Shadows have no mass nor do they have any energy that exerts force that can be mathematically equated to weight or mass.

 

But we've established that "those areas" are lighted, that they contain light, that all of the areas contain light--whether they be shadow or not shadow. In all cases, if light has any weight, then all the areas have weight. Therefore, you can NOT deny what you have denied above.

Yes?

 

Oh my GOD...I cannot believe I am going to post upon this idiotic topic again but I JUST CAN'T STAND IT!

PHOTONS DO NOT HAVE MASS.

Look at it this way.

We all agree that F=MA...or Force = Mass X Acceleration.

So when a person throws a ROCK at a tree...the Force that the Rock hit's the tree depends upon the MASS of the Rock as well as the accelerated velocity of the Rock.

That means if I throw a Rock that has half the mass of another rock at the same acceleration of speed it will strike the tree at Half the Force of the Rock with double the mass.

As well....if I throw a Rock at a velocity with half the rate of acceleration of the acceleration of velocity of another rock the same mass...it will strike the tree with 50% the Force of the Rock striking the tree with double the acceleration of velocity.

So...ANY OBJECT OR MATERIAL HAVING MASS....no matter how small or large...if traveling at any velocity at any acceleration will strike a tree or person or anything that at an amount of FORCE equal to that objects ACCELERATION OF VELOCITY TIMES IT'S MASS.

That means....IF PHOTONS HAD MASS...and they don't...but if they did...the amount of FORCE that they would strike a persons body with is EQUAL TO THEIR MASS TIMES THEIR ACCELERATION.

Since PHOTONS have a velocity of 186,282 miles per second....if these Photons had a MASS...when LIGHT ILLUMINATED YOUR BODY....this PHOTONS would strike your body they would strike with a FORCE equal to their MASS TIMES THEIR ACCELERATION....so if they had MASS...the moment a person walked into SUNLIGHT they would be VAPORIZED...as all these supposed PHOTONIC PARTICLES OF MASS would rip through your body at the speed of light!

CAN WE ALL SEE HOW STUPID AND MORONIC AND RIDICULOUS THE IDEA THAT PHOTONS HAVE MASS IS!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PHOTONS DO NOT>>>>>>>>NOT! HAVE MASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

That is exactly what I meant when I wrote:

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.

You do the math. Make it small enough. There is an infinity of numbers. I’m sure you can find them.

Do you get my point?

I know you do.

Are you one of those who believe that ‘Time’ exists? I mean other than some physical process.

 

What the HELL are you talking about?

You are ACTUALLY SAYING THAT PHOTONS HAVE MASS!!!!!????

I can't believe this....sigh*

Take a moment and Google Photons and check out Photon or Light Wave Packets.

Also...Google...Photons Quantum Particle/Wave Form.

This will allow you to understand the facts and realities of how Photons exist as both PARTICLE AND WAVE.

Photons or Light travel in Wave Packets which determines Light Frequency.

The Frequency of Light is determined by the length of the Wave Packet...as well anything that is part of the Electromagnet Spectrum...such as are Photons and Electrons exist upon this spectrum which itself is determined by such Quanta's Frequency.

As well Light Frequency or Wave Length determines whether Light is visible or not or is say...Ultra-Violet, Infra Red....as well as what color our eyes see.

The Photon exists as a Particle and Wave and Lights Wave Packet Length....as this length be it longer or shorter...determines the Frequency of that Light. The Photon exists as a Particle all along INFINITE STATES OF POSITION along this Light Packets Wave Length and this travels at 186,282 Miles per second....the Universal Maximum Velocity in Normal Space/Time.

ANYTHING THAT HAS MASS OR IS A PARTICLE OF MASS....ie....Protons and Neutrons....CANNOT OBTAIN THIS VELOCITY. As anything or any Particle of Mass obtains a velocity closer and closer to the Speed of Light...the mass of that object or particle GET'S CLOSER AND CLOSER TO INFINITE POTENTIAL MASS AND KINETIC ENERGY OR INFINITE POTENTIAL KINETIC FORCE.

So IF IT WERE TRUE....WHICH IT IS....NOT!....that a Photon had MASS....A SINGLE PHOTON TRAVELING AT 186,282 MILES PER SECOND UPON IMPACTING THE SURFACE OF EARTH FROM THE SUN....JUST A SINGLE PHOTON........JUST ONE.....WOULD HAVE INFINITE POTENTIAL MASS AND INFINITE POTENTIAL ENERGY AND FORCE AND WOULD........

......................................................DESTROY THE EARTH!

This is a FACT.............if a Photon had mass and impacted Earth at Light Speed...........

.............................................IT WOULD DESTROY THE EARTH! JUST ONE!

SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND JUST HOW IDIOTIC THIS TOPIC IS?????!!!!!!??????

AboveAlpha