Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

It was only real to the observer. Sure, the information was there, but it was only there in the statistics, which in a quite physical manner consisted of patterns of light. It didn't transform to one coherent shadow other than in the mind of the person.

 

Huh, google doesn't seem to be great with the µ character, though.

 

Now that is an interesting statement... as it is the foundation of what I recognize as 'belief'. I know I experienced something, There is little to no evidence of any physical thing to have been the cause, yet my mind clearly tells me that the event did happen. Such incidents as that is why it is not always a good thing to question the belief of someone else. That other person might well have checked out all available information and data regarding the area where the thing was observed and upon finding that no physical objects were passing overhead. it became the belief of the observer... and the observer can categorize that event however he/she desires... yet no proof can be required because it was merely a belief. But this thread is not about all of that stuff mentioned above,,,, I just found your statement interesting in that direction.

 

Usually I just Google when I want to convert things. 1 microPascal (µPa) is = 1.0* 10^-6 Pascals or 0.000001 Pascals and 1 Pascal is equal to one million microPascals.
1 Pascal = 0.000145037738007 pounds per square inch.
1 square meter = 1550 square inches
Therefore:
light pressure on one square inch = 4.6 microPa/1550 inches^2 * 0.000001Pascals/1 microPa * 0.0001450377 pounds per square inch/1Pascal = 4.3015694390715667311411992263056e-13 pounds per square inch.
Thats:
0.000000000000430156 pounds per square inch.
Oh yeah by the way...always remember that there is s difference between pounds force and pounds mass in the English system. It doesn't make any difference on the earths surface but up in space...
I'm hoping I didn't make any math errors and the 4.6 micro Pa value is subject to review but there y'are.

 

C'mon, you can't possibly think that given his perspective that he'd actually know how to hitchhike.

 

We're having a bit of an issue in that we have several definitions of some things, for instance, "physical". A shadow in the real world, before it has been observed is a pattern of light, or rather a lack thereof. A pattern can be physical in one sense (you can have a ring of rocks, the rock is physical) and non-physical in another sense (the ring goes away when the rocks are rearranged, yet no matter is gone). Things can be either, neither or both. I don't know what you experienced, I'm guessing that I'd believe it was mundane or imagined. The fact that the shadow was real to the observer does not make it real in any of the other senses, but to each his own, I guess.

 

Once again... that is really cool and I do appreciate you taking the necessary time to provide valid input to my inquiry. It is not often on this forum that one is able to obtain the gracious assistance from others. IMHO... you are a Godsend.

 

Mice do not have thumbs.

 

The observation and experimentation of the existing world as it is = Science
The desire and hope that the world is what you want it to be = Faith/Religion

 

Then the exercise of science is in fact a religion when there is a desire or hope of changing the world into what you want it to be. I can accept that.

 

I wouldn't say so - because to desire change doesn't require faith or belief without evidence. If the change desired is not possible due to scientific and logical barriers than you can deem that change a religious desire, but a desire to change based on scientifically possible means is just a desire.

 

I see what you mean about that issue of definitions. You point out with emphasis the word "physical" and immediately make reference to "a shadow in the real world" .... where else will you be able to find a shadow other than in the 'real world'?

At any rate, I like your closing ... "I guess".

 

Comparing grapes and lemons I see and calling them different.

Desire essentially is something wanted ... (subjective)

Faith essentially is a confidence that the desire will be manifested... (subjective)

No one mentioned anything about possibilities of change... Possibilities are innumerable, even within the scope of science. The old use of radium paint for the markings on watches was an advancement (seemingly a positive change) achieved by scientists of their time, yet it proved to be an immense health hazard... See here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rad...LIrM9ATCjIBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=604

I presented that image search as a response to your introduction of the subject of possibilities. Speaking of possibilities, were you attempting an appeal to probability? I will give you a chance to address that question for sure.

 

well, let's start with your initial post -

"Then the exercise of science is in fact a religion when there is a desire or hope of changing the world into what you want it to be. I can accept that."

That is not the same as seeing the world as you wish it was.
For example, a person who is a Christian basically wants/believes humanity's existence to be based on the fall of man from the Garden of Eden - in so much that God exists and punished Eve and Adam from eating from the tree of knowledge.

But in science there is no real desire beyond the desire to know what is happening - to answer what is existence, and why is existence. If there is a jump to conclusions due to an inability to disprove the negative (which is what keeps religion alive), it is not science but hope.

 

Well, the first mistake you made is saying that the text you highlighted in red letter is my "initial post". NOT TRUE... therefore your entire premise is flawed.

BTW: I am a Christian and I do not want/believe as you have described. FAIL on your part.

 

Photons are affected by gravity and they do have mass.

 

True or not true - I don't know. This is a difficult word in such a context. We are calculating a mass-equivalent with the formula m=h/(c*lambda) so the mass of a photon is indirect proportional to its wavelength. But I miss something like to buy some hot short wavelengths and how to make some pounds apples out of it. Is it really mass - or "only" energy - and is mass really the same like energy?

I was by the way a little astonished and amsued because a look in a german bible (Luther bible 1984) gives only very easy understandable sentences without any mysteries when I took a look for the word "Schatten"="Shadow".

Nevertheless the longer I think about the question "What's the weight of a shadow?" I see that this is a very nice question. And if something is a nice question - then maybe indeed someone is able to find interesting answers. But still I'm a little amused about the christian context - although I had on my own once an experience with something what I would call "dark and formless evil" and this was everything else than an amusing situation. This has not really something to do with a shadow in the world of physics - it has to do with formlessness, darkness and evilness. Another - more positive - analogy in such a context could be if someone likes to look for the "light of the enlightenment". Sure enlighenment is light - but physics speaks not about the "light of the enlightenment" if it speaks about "light" - although this light of the enlightenment is unbevlievable worthful for physics and all other sciences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoTxB4Wu8nk

 

Gravity is a structure of the geometry of the space-time. Analogy: A car is affected by the road - but does this mean a car is the road?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw

 

Such a shadow as described weighs 1/10th the weight of a normal ghost.

 

Good grieve - nearly eyeryone in this forum here would need to apologize continously and you are doing it because you said something reasonable. What a world. .. I just simple wanted to say that you should not forget that the real existing nothing here in our world - we are calling it not "supershadow" but "vacuum" - is not really empty and is also able to produce unbelievable powers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPgS26ZhqZs

Oh by the way: ... and we are not able to block gravity ... If gravity is a form of "light" then there's no shadow of this form of light ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXTzGQfHBFI

 

¿Really? How can we see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEt2XdN_TbQ

 

I suppose momentum is considered mass in mathematical equations....however in the context of this debate this does not come into play.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/ask_astro/askastro_banner.jpg

 

Sure. Imagine, for instance the shadow the earth casts on, let's say the edge of the galaxy. The shadow will go one turn in the same 1 year it takes for the earth to go around the sun (even though there is a delay between the earth being hit by light and the edge of the galaxy being hit by light). Seeing how the galaxy is more than one light year in circumference, that means that the shadow travels faster than the speed of light.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what I meant by that would be the area which, in the real world experiences statistics of photons that a human would interpret as a shadow.

 

No idea how to imagine this idea although you seem to think it's easy to imagine this. Give me please an example where we can see in the reality a shadow moving faster than lightspeed. With what kind of light do we see this shadow moving? Oh - I solved my problem now: Take a laserlight that is producing 100 times a laserpoint on the galaxy (diagonal size 100000 lightyears). So the distance between 2 points would be 100 lightyears in 2% of a daylength. Seems it be much faster then lightspeed - but this is not so in reality: nothing moves from one point to another point within the galaxy. The light - and the shadow of the earth too - moves always from our sun to the galaxy and not from one point left in the galaxy to another point right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b28G1Adk2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgRjdxbMtNE

 

Imagine you're standing between a lamp and a wall. If you're standing close to the lamp, your shadow will be much larger than you. Let's say you're stationed halfway between the lamp and the wall, the shadow is then twice your size, approximately. Imagine now that you move around the lamp. The shadow will move with twice your speed. Imagine then that you run at, let's say 60% of the speed of light. Your shadow thus moves at 120% the speed of light, faster than light.

Of course, the reason that this happens is that there is no object moving with the shadow that in itself travels faster than the speed of light and that would break light speed. The position of the shadow at time 2 is a function of your position, not the earlier position of the shadow. In contrast, the position of physical things depend on its previous position and its velocity.