Challenge to mathematicians and scientists

Where did I say I had any experimental evidence? Nowhere? Wow! Too many illicit drugs in your diet. However I notice that you do not attempt to dispute the information that I did provide via the links I posted. As it stands right now,,,, even the scientists are disputing one another regarding the nature of the photon.... Now you want us to think that you know more than they do? LOL.

 

Shadows don't have a weight. A shadow is nothing more than the absence of light.

A phenomenon doesn't have a weight, either.

Not a bit of it. A shadow doesn't occupy space. The shape of a shadow is an outcome of whatever caused the absence of light. Just because such effects are observable, that doesn't mean they have a weight.

If I don't have an apple, what does the absence of an apple that was never there weigh? Nothing. If I don't have a screwdriver, what does the absence of the screwdriver that was never there weigh?

Darkness is the absence of light. If God is light, and darkness is the absence of light (God), what does the absence of light (God) weigh?

 

I rest my case with your admission highlighted above.

 

TAKE THAT, ATHEISTS!

JESUS 1, ATHEISTS 0!

(Am I doing this thing right?)

 

IMHO, yes! but that is just an opinion.

 

So, the point of the OP was somehow about ID?

 

We are not creating anything in physics - the universe (physis) itselve is something else than the sciene of the physis called physics - although physics is a part of the universe. But I think it's more easy to understand our spirit as a form of transcendence so we don't gave to grow completly confused. The creation is independent from our definitions. Our definitons are only a way how we are thinking about the physis of the world. We can think in lots of ways - but not in all ways.

No idea why you think this. The geometry of the space-time changes if a mass is there. I don't understand why this should mean a mass has to have a space-time. It's in the opposit: Because masses are moving masses so maybe we can see the space-time itselve is something like a mass - what sounds a little crazy. But what if the world is crazy? Or what if we are crazy ourselve so we are thinking normality is crazyness. Who knows? Our problem is maybe the problem of the fish who looks everywhere where this mysterious substance called "water" could be.

What? ... E=mc^2 - with other words "energy is equivalent with mass and mass with energy" - and that seems to be exactly the problems we don't understand in an adequate way in case of photons. If a photon moves with lightspeed then the photon itsleve is maybe existing without any possibillity to find out what time is - but this doesn't mean it is exsiting outside of time. It can collide with something else and stop to be a photon - so time is able to have an influence on a photon - completly independent wether it would be able to know something about time or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1UfJGorEc0

 

Why should I like to change your mind? I try to understand something - that's all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNBxJMg28OQ

 

I don't see how that supports the idea of intelligent design actually happening in nature.

 

What? ... A body blocks light and what we can see is a shadow. ... That's all. What are you refering to?

If a body blocks light then we can see a shadow - but the shadow is dark and not black. So there's also light within the shadow.

Darkness

experiment by thoughts - because a surface in such gigantic dimensions is not existing

If I would take a look from any position on this surface I would see the planet earth moving in front of the sun. So where is your wandering shadow?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ych7uO1dER0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHNW94GVleU

 

I refer to the shape you see on the wall. The colour or purity of the shadow is not relevant here. Nor is the feasibility of the construction. The same argument could be made with lasers shining at the moon and a satellite or even different parts of the moon. It would technically be doable, but it would be a lot more awkward to explain, because I'd have to calculate how quickly I'd have to move the flash light and so on. The thought experiment shows that it can be done, it is not a blueprint for the most easily constructed method to measure it.

Ok, you've merged the two examples, one with the sun and earth and one with the surface. That's fine though, the same principles will apply, only the sizes and speeds may have to change, for instance, the surface might have to be further away since the earth takes longer to move halfway around the sun than it takes for you to change hands with your flash light.

The shadow of the earth would then be moving across the surface you are standing on when the earth passes in front of the sun. For instance, the earth would go around the sun in a year. If the surface has a radius of one light year, the shadow will make a full turn of 6.28 light years in one year, which is 6.28 times faster than light.

Note that in practice, this isn't very useful, since the sun is so large that light from its top or bottom will still illuminate the shadowed area. You can imagine this being done by lasers instead, though. As usual, it's not the fact that we can construct it that is relevant, it is the fact that it would work if we did.

 

Let us place a satellite with a blinking laser in the middle of the shadow of the earth.

The angular speed of the earth around the sun is 2*pi in 1 year (=365,25 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 31,557,600 s = 1 turn in 31,557,600 seconds). That's about 1/30,000,000 Hz [1/s]. Lightspeed is about 300,000,000 [m/s]. In 1 lightyear distance we would have an circumferential speed of 10 m/s. In 2 lightyears dictance it would be 20 m/s and so on. 3 lightyears distance it would be 30 m/s and so on and so on and so on. I don't know what happens if we reach the lightspeed now - but I doubt about that a real circumferential speed could grow over the speed of the lightspeed. That's one "problem".

The other problem is it, that the laserlight in the shadow moves together with the shadow of the earth with lightspeed through the vacuum of the universe - not faster and not less fast. If we could see a pulse of the laser glowing like a star in the middle of the shadow of the earth we would see star-like lights and not stars moving like spaceships all around or a moving shadow. Your imagination seems to be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T5q2C2IEBE

 

You forget that the purpose of the science of Physics is to study Energy.

We accomplish this by incrementally formulating definitions and collecting Facts around, and for ,those definitions.
By such means, we hope we will understand that same world a fish can never hope to so do.

 

All true.

But Gravity is that force between two masses that attract them, whether they are each at different extremes in the universe, or as close as the Earth and the moon.

Inherent in mass is this property of attraction, measured as weight, which is characteristic of mass, hence useful in its definition.

 

LOL

I already told you that you question was inappropriate:

A shadow is the absence of light.


(Light has no mass anyway, so needs no space to occupy.
Clearly, no light at all, a shadow, would occupy no space.
i.e.; the definition of Space is: 3-Dimensional)

The shape you think you see is really the outline of the boundary of the object blocking the light.


All this subterfuge about what photons are or are not is just avoiding the embarrassment of retracting the question you proposed in your first post.

 

?

Work is the definition of Energy, right?

We measure Energy by the amount of Work it has done.
But Energy exists even if it has not been used to do Work.

Consider the Energy inherent in a rock tittering on a cliff.
It can sit there for all the time in the world, until a storm activates that Energy.
The Energy has been outside of Time until then.

 

As much as Incorp disdains the definitions of Physics, his problem begins there.

He fails to understand that the Physicist defines Space as 3-Dimensional.
A shadow is 2-D.

A shadow is NOT occupying Space at all.
The screen upon which we see the shadow is what is occupying Space.
We are merely noting the color" of the screen as we perceive it to be.

It seems Black to our eye, just as the screen outside of the shadow appears to be white.

 

Energy? Why energy?

A formula like "F=m*a" for example is for me a description and not a definition. It's a secret why the form to describe physics with mathematics (mathematics is not a science) is so unbelieveable successfull.

Manntje, Manntje, Timpe Tee, Buttje, Buttje in der See ...

[video=youtube;SLeEtMyNG7c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLeEtMyNG7c[/video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beXW5s3ZCB4

 

Fair enough. I just think "weight" is a slightly misleading term for what you're talking about.

 

Now you have a major problem: You see those two claims you have made (highlighted in red letter). Well, guess what .... those are positive declarations amounting to what you think is a FACT. Now it is time for you to pay the piper... Bring forth the scientific evidence that proves those claims else be known as a prevaricator of the lowest and vilest type.

 

Nope! But when the admission was made about a god having the capability of doing what was described, I simply could not resist the temptation of making an issue of it.

 

Embarrassment? You got to be kidding. In just the two days that this thread has been on board, it has already acquired over 140 postings. What is to be embarrassing about such notoriety? Seemingly it has caught the attention of a cross section of the members of this forum and even has those that have a secular leaning arguing amongst themselves... Nope... no embarrassment for me.

 

Ted Bundy was notorious also.

 

So was Jesus the Christ.

 

So notoriety in and of itself is of no consequence.
Unless, of course, you are somehow connecting Jesus to Ted Bundy.