Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

You did not understand the difference between psychology and physics. The shadow is not moving on the wall (=the galaxy in your example before) with a higher speed than lightspeed, beause the shadow (and the light what is producing the shadow) moves from the lamp (and the body) to the wall (with lightspeed). That's all what happens. Perhaps someone wrote a simulation then it would become more clear what really happens in such a case if you watch the scenarios from different point of views with different speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSMZA8GtPhk

 

All I am saying is that Einstein would be dead wrong and we would find so many inconsistencies with his Relativity today that it woyuld be certain that photons had mass.

His assumption that photons do not have mass, visa vie his theory, which we have applied and verified over the last half century seems to confirm the weightlessness of a photon.
If you have experimental proof of a mass for photons, please tell us.

Otherwise all you have is one of the many unsupported thoughts about Photons that were available both before Einstein and after.

 

Likewise is your condition with regard to the subject of photons.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-6/e6-3.pdf

 

This is more or less what I am trying to say. The shadow is just a mental construct humans use to consider dark areas. It is not physical and it does not break any physical laws by moving faster than light since the shadow contains no information.

As you say, there is nothing other than a human abstraction that travels faster than the speed of light. That's why I'm trying to argue that a shadow isn't physical. All photons travel at their normal speed.

I wouldn't say that the shadow travels from the lamp to the wall, I interpret the word shadow as the figure we would see on the wall. From your text, it seems you understand what I'm trying to say, but we have different understandings of what the definition of a shadow is.

 

Thought experiments require the reasoning to be good. I think mine is.

I have never seen anyone complain that thought it being used, only that bad reasoning is used when people think. I don't see how this issue touches on intelligent design, this is an example of human design that is intelligent but that doesn't mean that anything else is designed intelligently. The opposition to intelligent design mostly advocate a method similar to trial and error. That would also be useful in building buildings and by the logic you used, that would be an argument for trial and error. The reason humans have chosen design is that it is efficient. Evolution and cosmology is not required to be efficient and thus, we have no reason to prefer design over trial and error on this basis.

 

If photons have a mass then they are a part of the system "gravity". Are photons modifying the geometric structure of the space-time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOjQwyVbJl4

 

So I wasted my time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW9JX6961KM

 

This I did not say nor did I think this. I said something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHXpnZi9Hzs

 

..."likewise"...

What experimental evidence do you have that everything Einstein has said and has been confirmed will remi-ain true even if we insist photons are not massless, as he assumed.

I mean, Einstein's theories have been working for us, based upon the conclusion of photons are massless.
Can you show us evidence of the same conclusions appearing, (Black holes, atomic energy, speed of light constant, etc) even if we change the weightlessness to a mass?

 

True, I assumed that was one way to write what you meant.

 

Right.
And,... if photons at great speeds have mass, then they are even less massive at rest, since mass increases with speed.
But, by definition, the mass of a photon at the speed of light would be infinite, ore so large as to be inconceivable.

This is a consequence of mathematic Einstein set down.

 

Reasoning is a part of that thought process. So when you complain or see complaints about people who use "bad reasoning", you are suggesting that the person has a faulty thought process. BTW: "bad" is very ambiguous.

Are you then suggesting that people who design things (aircraft, rockets, boats, cars, electronic devices) are not 'intelligent'?

A lot of that 'trial and error' methodology takes place in scientific laboratories. Believe me, they make their fair share of errors.

I often use 'trial and error'... a very handy tool when conditions are controlled and risk of harm to humans is highly restricted. I never said that I was opposed to 'trial and error'.. on the other hand, you cannot say that intelligence is not a factor in the 'trial and error' method.... thus the 'intelligent design'.

Efficiency does not always insure safety of human lives.

That is very true. It amounts to the law of the jungle, where only the fittest survive... Hello Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. The efficiency of the A-bomb won the war at the cost of many thousands of lives who were not a part of the war.

 

That is not entirely true. It is complicated subject, so I will not waste my time trying to explain it.

Photons have a number of properties most people are not aware of. Angular momentum (rotational spin) is just one of them.

 

The light comes from the lamp - a body blocks the light = "shadow" - from this point on the shadow and the light are moving with lightspeed through the vacuum of the universe until they'll meet a "wall". The wall is reflecting the light and will meet the eye of an observer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLeyCX3Em-c

 

We don't have this problem if we say "photons have energy". Sunlight is warm. I would say we don't understand the difference between the equivalence of mass and energy and the identity of mass and energy. Somewhere seem to be a difference between the mass of a photon and the mass of an apple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgscfzH1Pe0

 

Yes, I explained the momentum that accompanies a photon.

It acts as if there is mass present under the influence of gravity, for instance, but it gives photons no actual mass.

 

Hmmm,...

I understand the difference between mass and energy by the definitions we give them.

Mass is an entity which has weight and requires Space to contain it.

Energy is an entity which requires no Space to exist, exists outside of Time, and has no mass.

 

Exists outside of time? Can you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion?

 

Yes, energy itself must operate outside of time since once in becomes time dependent it is call Power.

What had been raw Energy is now a physical entity we recognize as Power.

 

Power isn't a physical entity, it's a measurement of work derived from the transfer of energy.

 

Can you explain further please. "Weight" is the force exerted upon an object by gravity - your weight on the moon is much smaller even though your mass is the same. It's an incidental property - hypothetically if an object of pure mass existed in the universe alone then it would have no weight. So what do you mean by saying that mass has weight?

 

That's an assumption I'm willing to make, unless you have something demonstrable to change my mind.

 

Again, what you're referring to as the shadow and what I refer to as a shadow are different things. You're referring to an absence of light, I'm referring to an absence of light hitting a surface and thus creating a shape which humans can consider an entity.

 

This is more of a philosophical topic rather than math or science.

The absense of photons does not "create" the shadow.

The object is why there is an absense of photons. The object affects the photons. It has nothing to do with the existence of a shadow.

What creates the shadow is not the object, either, just like objects are not the color that we see.

Objects are reflecting the color (wavelength of light) that we see. They absorb the color that they are.

We see an apple, we say it is red. Physically, red is the light rejected by the object. Red is the color that the apple is not.


The shadow is. The shadow is not when light is applied. Then, the photon is what changes the shadow, not the object blocking the photon.

The object maintains the shadow, but it don't create it. The shadow was the very first construct and existed before the object or the light.

 

Jeez, now it turned long.

Yes. Bad is ambiguous, which is why it can be liberally used by both sides in any argument.

No, I specifically said that the design by humans is intelligent and I pointed out that it makes no comment on whether anything else is intelligently designed. It's all in the post.

Of course, but that wasn't in question, was it? Humans can use either when doing whatever it is we do. Nature can not use intelligent design (simplification), a god can. What I pointed out was that the fact that humans can use intelligent design does not mean that nature has to.

This is kind of leaving the subject, I didn't say that nature uses design, I said it was a process similar to trial and error. I didn't elaborate because the details such as who else can use it or whether or not it can save lives is not important for the argument I was trying to make.

What I meant was that we have two options when it comes to the origin of the world (at least in this simplified version). Either it was designed or it was formed through this method closer to trial and error. Some point out that humans use intelligent design for their contraptions. I point out that that's because it is more efficient in some cases. Since efficiency is not a requirement for nature, that logic does not apply to our query of whether the universe was designed.