Does light have any matter at all? Me and my friend were discussing God, and the only thing we could come up with was light could be god. It's is omnipotent and it gives life, and without it we would die. And since light in neccesary for a universe to exist I generally assumed light was it. But one part of our theory is that light dosen't have a earthly quality like matter. Also does light have atoms? I am totally ignorant so if this assertion is totally wrong, just tell me. But if light has no matter, and not atoms... what is it? Does it exist? :confused:

Light is not omnipotent.

Light isn't everywhere? Where dosen't it exist?

Light has photons but photons have zero mass, no charge, and an infinite life time. All colors are made of light. There is light almost everywhere in the universe (most of which cannot be seen). Light kind of created the universe (big bang), earth, and humans...also light allows us to see the world, since everything we see is a reflection of light. Light is the fastest, and probably the most powerful force in the universe. Light is electromagnetic radiation..

Originally posted by nico
Light isn't everywhere? Where dosen't it exist?

I think u mean OMNIPRESENT rather than omnipotent then!

Does light have any matter at all?

No, not by my definition of matter that I like to stick by! Light has no rest mass.

and the only thing we could come up with was light could be god.

I doubt it

It's is omnipotent and it gives life, and without it we would die.

Not necessarily, ther are many species on the earth today designed to survive without light (especially in the deep oceans).

Also does light have atoms?

No, as u AND I have said already, light is not matter

But if light has no matter, and not atoms... what is it? Does it exist?

I think we all know it exists!!!

Light is simply a wave like a wave going through water. Water waves have no mass either and are really just ideas describing the kind of non-translational motion of the water. Instead of water, replace electromagnetic fields for light.

Relax, he may be trying to involve the theory that light is dualist.

Originally posted by curioucity
Relax, he may be trying to involve the theory that light is dualist.

I am relaxed, just pointing out the things we KNOW are wrong!

Thanks for the info, but let me bug some more:

I doubt it

Why do you doubt it? Because he is the model of the Judeo-Christian god that we associate with the word. B/c light is amoral? The god in whom I am referring to is the god that gives and nurtures life, and allows us to have free will. Light...

Not necessarily, ther are many species on the earth today designed to survive without light (especially in the deep oceans).


Yes that is very true, but they can't survive without light. The oceans need light to exist do they not? Also to stay healthy? Indirectly but importantly those animals are still bounded by the importance of light.

I think we all know it exists!!!


Can you prove it me? Can you show me light? I know you will get confused with this statement, you'll say look around... yes I look around but how can I accept matter-less being, if it not god? Nothing that essentially does things?

You say light has no mass. But in that case, explain me how come light
is sucked into blackholes? :rolleyes:

Read a book on general relativity and find out.

Then explain to me then we do not feel light? We feel warmth not light, that is radiation... Albiet you pose a good question, but we didn't need your sarcasm. But even as John Connellan has said that light has no mass, I know shit all. If you want to ask anyone ask him...

Originally posted by Mithadon
You say light has no mass. But in that case, explain me how come light is sucked into blackholes? :rolleyes: No, just because something is effected by gravity it does not mean that it has mass. Yes, this means that the simple Newtonian gravity equations that you learned in high school don't tell the entire story.

Light has no mass.

Can something exist with no mass? :confused: Essentially, I don't want to hear I can see it nonsense. :cool:

Originally posted by nico
Can something exist with no mass? :confused: Essentially, I don't want to hear I can see it nonsense. :cool: Yes. It is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light. Light has no mass, which is why it can travel as fast as it does.

Understood, but does it exist? Can something with no mass, and no atoms exist? I thought all things had to have atoms to exist? Chances are that I am wrong... but I can't understand how nothing can be something? :confused:

Originally posted by nico
Light isn't everywhere? Where dosen't it exist? Inside a very cold, dark box?

Originally posted by nico
Understood, but does it exist? Can something with no mass, and no atoms exist? I thought all things had to have atoms to exist? Chances are that I am wrong... but I can't understand how nothing can be something? :confused: Yes, obviously light exists, and yet it has no mass. Things don't have to be made of atoms in order to exist. Atoms are themselves made up of smaller particles (protons and neutrons) that can exist independently outside of atoms.

I would then assume that these have mass? Also that light has these things? If those have mass (because they exist) then light does have mass. :confused:

Originally posted by nico
I would then assume that these have mass? Also that light has these things? If those have mass (because they exist) then light does have mass. :confused: Something is not required to have mass simply because it exists. Yes, protons and neutrons have mass; I was merely mentioning them as examples of how not everything that exists has to be made of atoms.

Light is not made of protons and neutrons; it is made of massless particles called photons.

Massless something...something with no mass. I might be ad nasuem-nating here but I can't even fathom that. Have we ever seen a photon? Where else do the photons reside. It sounds like a spirit...do you see where I am getting at? Not earthly. That sounds like God. :cool:

Originally posted by nico
Massless something...something with no mass. I might be ad nasuem-nating here but I can't even fathom that. Have we ever seen a photon? Where else do the photons reside. It sounds like a spirit...do you see where I am getting at? Not earthly. That sounds like God. :cool: They are particles that have no mass. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with the idea, but that's just the way the universe is. Light don't have mass, and yet it exists. Conclusion: things can exist even though they don't have mass.

Because the implications of such a assertion is far reaching. It's like verifying that what we see is not everything there is. Essentially could I not use this to justify God? We can't see it like X-ray's we "know" it exists (albeit empiricists would have difficulty accepting that). I am not disagreeing with you in the least. But you are missing the essence of the question, can that be God? A non-existent something? I don't find the concept hard to understand per se, what I have difficulty is believing that something can exist without essentially existing. I have yet to hear scientific proof of the existence of light. Our senses do not see the objective reality, thus we all see a perception that we regard as light. A blind person would have no idea of what we are talking about. Light is subjective, also since light is essential for colours to exist. What would a universe before the big bang look like? I wouldn't say black, doesn’t black need light to absorb? You can't imagine nothingness, I am certain of that. That assertion could essentially explain other alternate realities.

Because the implications of such a assertion is far reaching. It's like verifying that what we see is not everything there is.

There's tons of stuff we can't "see" but we know exists, thats the whole point of theoretical physics.

Essentially could I not use this to justify God?

About as much as you can use the complexity of the body to justify god. Just because something is complex doesn't justify god.

We can't see it like X-ray's we "know" it exists (albeit empiricists would have difficulty accepting that).

Um... X-rays are an electromagnetic wave, same as light just a different frequency lol

I am not disagreeing with you in the least. But you are missing the essence of the question, can that be God? A non-existent something? I don't find the concept hard to understand per se, what I have difficulty is believing that something can exist without essentially existing.

I don't get it man... are you disputing if light exists? We see it everytime we open our eyes, we can watch and listen to TV and radio because of it, etc etc etc. Your thinking of life as way too cut and dry, in the sense that EXISTANCE = MASS, which just isn't the case.

I have yet to hear scientific proof of the existence of light. Our senses do not see the objective reality, thus we all see a perception that we regard as light. A blind person would have no idea of what we are talking about.

Well we exist in this world at this moment, so right now this is our reality. In this world we have light. We also have sound, just because a deaf person can't hear it doesn't make any difference.

Light is subjective, also since light is essential for colours to exist. What would a universe before the big bang look like?

There was no universe before the Big Bang.

I wouldn't say black, doesn’t black need light to absorb? You can't imagine nothingness, I am certain of that. That assertion could essentially explain other alternate realities.

Black is the absence of light. Who are you saying "you" to? I can imagine nothingness, its the opposite of somethingness lol. And how would this explain alternate realities?

Nico,

Read this link.

http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSpec2.html

The electromagnetic spectrum includes visible light. Without visible light, we wouldn't have lasers. Without any other electromagnetic spectrum, you couldn't use a cell phone or watch tv or listen to the radio or feel the heat of a fire you're close to.

So? How do I know they exist? Do I experience X-rays? Do you experience X-rays? Without the aid of a machine?

There's tons of stuff we can't "see" but we know exists, thats the whole point of theoretical physics.


And Descartes theory of rational could be very easily disputed by Hume's empiricism. There is no standard.

I don't get it man... are you disputing if light exists?

I don't disagree with the assertion of photons, not light.

? We see it everytime we open our eyes, we can watch and listen to TV and radio because of it, etc etc etc. Your thinking of life as way too cut and dry, in the sense that EXISTANCE = MASS, which just isn't the case.


I suggest you re-read the thread, and i suggest you prove to me light. Not through sensory perceptions, otherwise it is not based on a scientific method. Proof, not sensory perceptions.

Well we exist in this world at this moment, so right now this is our reality.

Your reality is not my reality, thus there is no reality. Reality is beyond the grasp of all of us.

In this world we have light. We also have sound, just because a deaf person can't hear it doesn't make any difference.


Of course it does, if a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it does it make a sound? No, just ask Berkeley, senses are perceived not real. Sound exists only because we experience it.

There was no universe before the Big Bang.


The universe as we know it? Your logically telling me that there was NOTHING at all before the big bang, if so then where was the epicenter of the big bang located, and if there was nothing, then how could nothing come from nothing? Yet we have problems accepting light as nothing.

Black is the absence of light. Who are you saying "you" to?

So Black doesn’t need any light to exist? That makes no sense, it absorbs light, does it not? Light would have to be the initial cause for blackness to exist.

Who are you saying "you" to?

Well since you now budded in I guess you too.

can imagine nothingness, its the opposite of somethingness lol

It is impossible for you to comprehend something that you have never experienced. Also I take “lol” a sign of weakness in argument, so please don’t degrade.

And how would this explain alternate realities?

i) Reality one = Mass
ii) Reality two = Nothingness existence, i.e dreams...

blackholesun

You are still not proving to me the existence of light. You are only showing the side effects of it.

I don't understand what you're getting at.
Originally posted by nico
Because the implications of such a assertion is far reaching. It's like verifying that what we see is not everything there is.What do you mean? We can see light. But you are missing the essence of the question, can that be God? A non-existent something? I don't find the concept hard to understand per se, what I have difficulty is believing that something can exist without essentially existing. I don't understand why you think it's impossible for something to exist without having mass. You keep saying things like 'a non-existent something' or 'without essentially existing'. Many things exist in the universe. Some of the things that exist have the property of having mass, while others don't. There are many properties that things can have or not have; mass is one of them. Protons have a charge and a mass. An electric field has a charge and no mass. Neutrons have mass but no charge. Mass is simply a property that light does not have.

Originally posted by nico
So? How do I know they exist? Do I experience X-rays? Do you experience X-rays? Without the aid of a machine?

There's tons of stuff we can't "see" but we know exists, thats the whole point of theoretical physics.


And Descartes theory of rational could be very easily disputed by Hume's empiricism. There is no standard.

I don't get it man... are you disputing if light exists?

I don't disagree with the assertion of photons, not light.

? We see it everytime we open our eyes, we can watch and listen to TV and radio because of it, etc etc etc. Your thinking of life as way too cut and dry, in the sense that EXISTANCE = MASS, which just isn't the case.


I suggest you re-read the thread, and i suggest you prove to me light. Not through sensory perceptions, otherwise it is not based on a scientific method. Proof, not sensory perceptions.

Well we exist in this world at this moment, so right now this is our reality.

Your reality is not my reality, thus there is no reality. Reality is beyond the grasp of all of us.

In this world we have light. We also have sound, just because a deaf person can't hear it doesn't make any difference.


Of course it does, if a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it does it make a sound? No, just ask Berkeley, senses are perceived not real. Sound exists only because we experience it.

There was no universe before the Big Bang.


The universe as we know it? Your logically telling me that there was NOTHING at all before the big bang, if so then where was the epicenter of the big bang located, and if there was nothing, then how could nothing come from nothing? Yet we have problems accepting light as nothing.

Black is the absence of light. Who are you saying "you" to?

So Black doesn’t need any light to exist? That makes no sense, it absorbs light, does it not? Light would have to be the initial cause for blackness to exist.

Who are you saying "you" to?

Well since you now budded in I guess you too.

can imagine nothingness, its the opposite of somethingness lol

It is impossible for you to comprehend something that you have never experienced. Also I take “lol” a sign of weakness in argument, so please don’t degrade.

And how would this explain alternate realities?

i) Reality one = Mass
ii) Reality two = Nothingness existence, i.e dreams...

blackholesun

You are still not proving to me the existence of light. You are only showing the side effects of it.

I won't answer to you since it's a waste of time because I have no proof that you exist

That is true, because essentially I am to you nothing more then a collection of 01010101011's. But please let's keep the thread germane...

You can say that light doesn't physically exist, since it has no mass but just because something has no mass doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Light is electromagnetic radiation, which is everywhere. Light is essentially energy, which is massless.

Yes I agree, but scientifically can I actually really buy that explanation? The existence of light is totally imaginary, and perceived. I have yet to see evidence of its existence. As I have said if we were blind light wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Nasor
I don't understand what you're getting at.

It's not very hard concept here, you are telling me something that you can't even prove. You are describing god when you are telling me things out of mere belief that these "photons" etc exist. Show me a Proton, or whatever, real pic.

What do you mean? We can see light. I don't understand why you think it's impossible for something to exist without having mass.

Have you ever questioned God, have you ever said to yourself where is he? He has no mass and almost everyone questions that. Why not light?

Some of the things that exist have the property of having mass, while others don't.

I would assume Gravity?

Protons have a charge and a mass... Neutrons have mass but no charge.


So in order for the electronic charge to exist there has to be mass... correct? In light there is just energy and no mass?

Mass is simply a property that light does not have.

If it were only that simple, then God should not be debated.

Originally posted by nico
It's not very hard concept here, you are telling me something that you can't even prove. You are describing god when you are telling me things out of mere belief that these "photons" etc exist. Show me a Proton, or whatever, real pic. I can't prove it only in the Humian sense that I can't really prove anything. The existence of massless photons is predicted mathematically by current theories of physics, there is an overwhelming amount of experimental evidence that they exist, and absolutely no reason to suspect that they don't exist. These three things, taken together, are as close to absolute proof as you can ever get outside of pure mathematics. Have you ever questioned God, have you ever said to yourself where is he? He has no mass and almost everyone questions that. Why not light?I have never heard anyone argue about the mass of god and I really have no opinions on the subject. If god does exist, he might or might not have mass. Who knows? It's more of a topic for the religion forum.In light there is just energy and no mass?Correct, in light there is energy and no mass.

Originally posted by nico
Yes I agree, but scientifically can I actually really buy that explanation? The existence of light is totally imaginary, and perceived. I have yet to see evidence of its existence. As I have said if we were blind light wouldn't exist.

I've said that same last statement dozens of times. Well, technically everything is a creation of our minds..."nothing can be proven, only validated". A "fact" is just what a group of people assume/accept based on their observations - nothing more.

Originally posted by nico
Yes I agree, but scientifically can I actually really buy that explanation? The existence of light is totally imaginary, and perceived. I have yet to see evidence of its existence. As I have said if we were blind light wouldn't exist.

Listen you feel heat right? Explain to me how YOU experience heat than? If I felt inclined to poke your eyes out, how would you know not to walk into a fire? How are YOU going to explain that? Because we know that from a prism that there is something on the far right of red that heat things up. I don't see how you need more proof but than again why am I explaining it to you...you don't exist anyhow.

And there are two ways to look at black...black as a color and black as a void. As a color black is the absorption of all the visible colors us humans can see...as a void it is the absence of anything including light so one can conclude by simple logic that if there is no light, there is no color but to us humans who observe it, it will appear black...why? Because we have to have some sort of observational effect to determine what we are looking at, but than it wouldn't be a void.

Originally posted by nico
If it were only that simple, then God should not be debated.

If you want to believe light doesn't exist...I can believe god doesn't exist...since you have no proof.

Originally posted by nico
Have we ever seen a photon?
You may not have, but it has been shown in tests that humans (and toads) do have the ability to see single photons. See here: http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/faq/see_a_photon.html.Originally posted by nico
It's not very hard concept here, you are telling me something that you can't even prove.It seems that you are attempting to use semantics to show that one "cannot prove anything". However, recall some definitions of prove (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prove):
1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

4. Mathematics.
a. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition).
b. To verify (the result of a calculation).Now, there are three main schools of thought about proving that something is true (or valid):

1.) There are some statements, called axioms, which are accepted as true. All other statements that are true must follow logically from these axioms, or must be a definition which is accepted as true.

Almost all Mathematicians generally belong to this school of thought.

2.) Accept reality as being "the truth". Any experiment that conforms to the scientific method, consistently produces the same result, and can be repeated by anyone with the proper equipment is generally accepted as true. This truth overrides everything, even existing theories. (To those versed in Physics, feel free to revise this definition, as it is currently my understanding of truth in Physics.)

Physicists tend to subscribe to this school of thought, with the only quibbles being those of interpretation of the results, e.g., I believe there was a thread earlier about "super luminal jets from quasars", and while neither side will disagree with the raw data, it is the interpretation of it that can create problems.

3.) Everything is subjective and thusly, nothing can be proven.

This school of thought essentially serves as a "safe house" for those who do not agree with the methods of the sciences, allowing them to safely "debunk" scientific methods, without any fear of being proven wrong, since in their eyes, nothing can be proven.

The simple fact is that a surefire way to not accomplish anything of significant value is to subscribe to school of thought number three. If you would actually like to be able to understand the environment you may or may not be perceiving, you must subscribe to school of thought number two. If you would like to do any work in Mathematics, you must subscribe to school of thought number 1. Note that 1 and 2 are not exclusive of one another, since Mathematics doesn't make claims about physical reality, nor does Physics currently rely upon any set of axioms.

"Nature of reality" arguments tend to only pass for intelligent arguments in the General Philosophy sub forum. You'll have a very hard time trying to use that type of reasoning here, since practically anyone who has studied any Science has already dealt with the "objective reality" debate long ago.

Originally posted by Dapthar
(To those versed in Physics, feel free to revise this definition, as it is currently my understanding of truth in Physics.)


i would agree wholeheartedly. i would also add that it is also possible to adhere to mathematical truths and physical truths, as long as you remember that they are not the same thing.

very well said, dapthar.

Originally posted by ericfost
There's tons of stuff we can't "see" but we know exists, thats the whole point of theoretical physics.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms?
If we know it, it is not a mere theory that it exists.
If its existence is theorized we don't quite know that it exists, do we?

I know what you are thinking, but I am not simply playing a game of semantics.
I am trying to make a point.

The current most widely accepted theory, albeit fairly widely contested as well (relatively speaking), is that photons have zero mass (in the classical definition of the term "mass").
It may well even be true.
However, it is not a known fact, and in my opinion, it is irresponsible to claim it as such.

Originally posted by nico

Not necessarily, ther are many species on the earth today designed to survive without light (especially in the deep oceans).


Yes that is very true, but they can't survive without light. The oceans need light to exist do they not? Also to stay healthy? Indirectly but importantly those animals are still bounded by the importance of light.


I only want to say one thing at the moment. U have contradicted yourself here! U say it is true that species can survive without light and then add that they cant surviv without light. The truth is they can survive without light! Oceans don't need light to exist either!

I have to say all interesting analysis, but no proof. I am a verge atheist so I am not being anti-science. What I am being is aware, and not appeal to authority. All of you have appealed to a authority to tell me brick and brack, none of you have ever seen a photon, and none of you have experimented with Photons... have you? I am bound to see diagrams of a atom, and photons, but that has as much validity as me showing you the creation story. None of you have explained to me nothingness... yet you are able to explain to me nothing. No substance? I am sense

I'm afraid oceans do, or else they'd be ice :)

Not everyone has to experiment with photons for us all to agree that they exist! Evidence is there. There is none, and never has been, any evidence that God has to exist!

(p.s. I am an atheist too):)

Originally posted by Mithadon
I'm afraid oceans do, or else they'd be ice :)

Wrong, no light reaches the abyss of many oceans.

What Nico should really strive towards is the idea that energy is God! Energy is what created, limits and what makes things happen in the universe. It CAN almost be thought of as a God.

I have to say all interesting analysis, but no proof. I am a verge atheist so I am not being anti-science. What I am being is aware, and not appeal to authority. All of you have appealed to an authority to tell me brick and brack, none of you have ever seen a photon, and none of you have experimented with Photons... have you? I am bound to see diagrams of an atom, and photons, but that has as much validity as me showing you the creation story. None of you have explained to me nothingness... yet you are able to explain to me nothing. No substance?


. U have contradicted yourself here! U say it is true that species can survive without light and then add that they cant surviv without light.

Well Species depend on light for their very existence, those creatures wouldn't even exist with light, do we disagree. If so then you deny evolution do you not? Those creatures need light, the ocean needs light to cleanse itself, and for oxygen I believe. So without oxygen in the ocean then those creatures would die. Those creatures need light....

Nasor

Archaic. To find out or learn (something) through experience

Show me.

do have the ability to see single photons.

Again how can you see it, if you can't even draw it? Or even show it to me.

If you want to believe light doesn't exist...I can believe god doesn't exist...since you have no proof.

WHOA! You actually got my whole point all along.
:rolleyes: (Round of applause)

Originally posted by nico
Well Species depend on light for their very existence, those creatures wouldn't even exist with light, do we disagree.

yes

If so then you deny evolution do you not?

no i dont

Those creatures need light, the ocean needs light to cleanse itself, and for oxygen I believe.

no they dont. light doesn't produce much oxygen in the ocean. Certainly not enough for ANY lifeform to use.

So without oxygen in the ocean then those creatures would die.

yes

Those creatures need light....

no

Originally posted by nico
I have to say all interesting analysis, but no proof. I am a verge atheist so I am not being anti-science. What I am being is aware, and not appeal to authority. All of you have appealed to a authority to tell me brick and brack, none of you have ever seen a photon, and none of you have experimented with Photons... have you?I've done experiments in which I 'watched' individual photons scatter off of a quartz cell filled with carbon tetrachloride using a photomultiplier tube and an oscilloscope. There is a vast, overwhelming amount of experimental evidence that photons exist. Look in any physics textbook or do a google search for numerous examples. Do you plan to never believe any scientific principle unless you have personally done an experiment to confirm it?I am bound to see diagrams of a atom, and photons, but that has as much validity as me showing you the creation story. None of you have explained to me nothingness... yet you are able to explain to me nothing. No substance? I am sense I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Do you want us to logically prove to you that photons don't have mass? If so, maybe this will suffice:

The apparent mass, M, of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. For any object in motion, it's mass will be mvelocity = mrest/ [(1-v^2/c^2)^.5] where v is the velocity and c is the speed of light. If you look at that equation you'll notice that as v increases the mass of the object increases. As the velocity approaches the speed of light, the mass will approach infinity. This means that it would be impossible to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light, since at that point it would be infinitely massive and require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate. Since light travels at the speed of light (by definition), we know that light can't have mass.

And yet the oceans in general would not be oceans without it.

no they dont. light doesn't produce much oxygen in the ocean. Certainly not enough for ANY lifeform to use.


That is awfully ignorant (I know shit all about science), is it true or not that oxygen in the oceans is created by photosynthesis by Plankton etc? And as thus it would need the light to photosynthesize. Thus the only logical conclusion is this:

i) Light needed for the animals to survive.
ii) Light needed for oxygen process
iii) Light & oxygen needed for the initial existence of all things.

Nasor

'watched' individual photons

So in essence your telling me that you seen nothing? :confused:

Now for your example was that trying to prove light, all it proved was yet again Light has no mass.

Originally posted by nico
Nasor

'watched' individual photons

So in essence your telling me that you seen nothing? :confused:

Now for your example was that trying to prove light, all it proved was yet again Light has no mass. I created a set of circumstances such that if light exists and behaves in the way that modern physics says it does, a particular thing would happen. What happened was what I expected, implying that light exists and that current models for how it behaves are accurate.

It's possible that light doesn't exist, but there is a vastly overwhelming amount of evidence that it does. This is as close to proof as we can get, so it's reasonable to operate under the assumption that light exists.

Originally posted by Nasor
It's possible that light doesn't exist, but there is a vastly overwhelming amount of evidence that it does. This is as close to proof as we can get, so it's reasonable to operate under the assumption that light exists.

No, light is also what allows non-blind people to see so Im afraid it DOES exist. If it didn't exist then we could not see - theres the proof. Don't be fooled into thinking Nicos way!

Originally posted by John Connellan
No, light is also what allows non-blind people to see so Im afraid it DOES exist. If it didn't exist then we could not see - theres the proof. Don't be fooled into thinking Nicos way! It's technically impossible to prove anything with total certainty outside of pure mathematics. The best you can do is accumulate evidence until you're sure that you are correct. This is why we say that scientific theories must be 'falsifiable' rather than 'provable'.

No u dont understand, what I am talking about is not a theory. The existance of light isn't a theory. Light is defined in many ways as that which illuminates objects (getting very philosophical here, but logical). Because people with the capacity to CAN see objects, light must exist. It IS almost mathematical!

Originally posted by John Connellan
No u dont understand, what I am talking about is not a theory. The existance of light isn't a theory. Light is defined in many ways as that which illuminates objects (getting very philosophical here, but logical). Because people with the capacity to CAN see objects, light must exist. It IS almost mathematical! I suppose that would work if you chose to define light as 'that which allows people to see'. I believe that nico was talking about the idea that light is composed of massless photons.

Originally posted by Nasor
I suppose that would work if you chose to define light as 'that which allows people to see'. I believe that nico was talking about the idea that light is composed of massless photons.

No, he has quoted many times that light does not exist when it clearly does. People really have to be careful with their words if they are to get on in science but then again, Nico never claimed to be a scientist!!!:)

How many times have I said do not give me senses as an argument. Just because I see it doesn’t mean it's real. You should know this basic argument. I am sorry if you can comprehend the idea of this. Light in which you speak of is the light we perceive, you cannot prove lights existence by simply saying look there! Then X-rays don't exist, because I can't see it.

that light does not exist when it clearly does

How nothing exist sir? :bugeye: You refuse to answer this simple question. You have even said light is mass less, using your logic dreams are as real as me here right now. :cool:

Originally posted by lethe
i would also add that it is also possible to adhere to mathematical truths and physical truths, as long as you remember that they are not the same thing.I agree.Originally posted by lethe
very well said, dapthar.Thank you.Originally posted by nico
I have to say all interesting analysis, but no proof. I am a verge atheist so I am not being anti-science.One does not imply the other, so your argument is flawed.Originally posted by nico
What I am being is aware, and not appeal to authority.Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself here? You state that you are not "anti-science" but claim that you must witness experiments yourself to verify that they are true.

Frankly, there is no other subject besides Mathematics where one can feasibly re-derive everything that they have learned. Physicists have spent their lifetimes experimenting and interpreting the data, and if you wish to waste your time verifying results that were peer-reviewed and previously established as true, feel free do to so, but as I mentioned earlier, it will accomplish nothing of significant value.

Do you not realize that life is finite? Do you really wish to waste your time verifying previously established results?Originally posted by nico
All of you have appealed to a authority to tell me brick and brack, none of you have ever seen a photon, and none of you have experimented with Photons... have you?I have not, but then again, Physics is not a major of mine. I do, however, place some faith in Physicists who have done experiments that confirm the existence of photons in accordance with my understanding of truth in Physics.Originally posted by nico
I am bound to see diagrams of a atom, and photons, but that has as much validity as me showing you the creation story.
Wow. You really try hard to follow the Philosophical school of thought regarding proofs.Originally posted by nico
None of you have explained to me nothingness... yet you are able to explain to me nothing.You have not explained what would constitute a proper explanation of a concept, so how can anyone explain anything to you? (See how pointless philosophical arguments are now?)Originally posted by nico
I am senseSure. One would think that "sense" would posses sufficient reasoning skills to have resolved these pointless philosophical issues long ago. The line of reasoning you are using only can hold sway over those akin to arrogant teenagers who assume that they have the world figured out.

can hold sway over those akin to arrogant teenagers who assume that they have the world figured out.

I refuse to answer to a such a low, and crass form of idiocy and logical fallacy as this. If you want to play in the sand box go ahead, but your relevancy has been negated. Ad Homing me beacuse you are either threatened by me, or at a loss for a sufficent argument.... What relevance does my age have to do with ANYTHING? :eek: I suggest you show yourself in WEP and getting a whipping.

Originally posted by nico
I refuse to answer to a such a low, and crass form of idiocy and logical fallacy as this. If you want to play in the sand box go ahead, but your relevancy has been negated.Whoa. Calm down there. I did not direct any attack at you, I merely stated that the structure of your argument is based on a principle that is rejected by essentially all of those who study the Sciences, namely that nothing can be proven. I asserted that those who believe this argument are naive, since I likened them to teenagers who believe they know everything of value.Originally posted by nico
Ad Homing meDo you even realize that I was not attacking you, or have you been so desensitized by the WEP subforum that this is your default reaction? Did you even notice the word "akin"? Regardless of one's age, if they followed the founding principle of your argument, I would still make the same comparison.Originally posted by nico
beacuse you are either threatened by me,I would state that you think a bit too highly of yourself.Originally posted by nico
or at a loss for a sufficent argument....Interesting statement coming from one who decided to essentially disregard my previous arguments in favor of misinterpreting of one of my statements.Originally posted by nico
What relevance does my age have to do with ANYTHING?None. You seem to be the one who is a bit quick to jump to conclusions. I had no idea how old you were until you brought it up yourself.Originally posted by nico
I suggest you show yourself in WEP and getting a whipping.Why would I do that? I care little for the discussions that go on there, for they parallel the one that you are trying to put forth here, arguments that cannot be disproved, asking questions that one knows cannot be answered, etc.

Edit: Decided not to waste any more posts on the replies.

Originally posted by nico
I am a teenager, and it was obviously directed at me. You dismiss me and myargument because of it. Pathetic, learn your fallacies please. Apparently you missed my previous statement:

"I had no idea how old you were until you brought it up yourself."

Also, my criticisms about your argument had nothing to do with your age, they had to do with the principle that you were basing your arguments upon. To believe otherwise is an attempt to simply disregard the validity of my previous argument, similar to how you disregard the validity scientific principles in your argument.Originally posted by nico
Don’t even bother answering it will be ignored.Ignore me if you wish, but that does not change the nature of the situation.
Originally posted by nico
Scietific principle:

Nothing with mass exists- Dreams, light, thought, etc.

Yet dreams aren't real... get real.. :rolleyes:


Wow. So many wrong ideas in just one phrase. Not only that, you assert that it is the truth. You've made it rather clear why you don't post in Physics & Math very often.Originally posted by nico
Ahh too bad you deleted your former post. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Do you think I am that stupid? 1.) The same text is present in this post.

2.) One's post count is decreased when a post is deleted, so the waste that I was referring to is remedied.

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning "at the man." Fallacies in this family all share the characteristic that they concern themselves with the person responsible for the argument, rather than the argument itself. They falsely assume that characteristics of the person responsible for an argument imply that the argument itself must have certain characteristics, or that the characteristics of the person responsible for the argument are relevant to the acceptability of the argument itself.

can hold sway over those akin to arrogant teenagers who assume that they have the world figured out.

I am a teenager, and it was obviously directed at me. You dismiss me and my argument because of it. Pathetic, learn your fallacies please.

Interesting statement coming from one who decided to essentially disregard my previous arguments in favor of misinterpreting of one of my statements.

You better believe it; inferiority should not be adhered too. Anyways your relevance has long passed and I suggest you mature a little bit. Don’t even bother answering it will be ignored.

Scietific principle:

Nothing with mass exists- Dreams, light, thought, etc.

Yet dreams aren't real... get real.. :rolleyes:

Edit: Decided not to waste a post on the reply.

Ahh too bad you deleted your former post. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Do you think I am that stupid?

Again it is simply amazing here... you assert light exists... it weighs nothing... dreams weigh nothing... yet we don't consider it real... God weighs nothing... we don't consider it real... The funniest thing about it is that none of you have proven to me that light isn't god... something that you can't explain, and something that is essential for the universe to exist. So go ahead appeal, and ad hom me all you want... it's rather tiresome. I am not seeing anything apart from nice and pretty calculations that essentially mean nothing when people are telling me "Lokkz heres you cans seez". Whom am I to believe here? Mathematical (rationalistic) equations that essentially prove nothing, and empiricist view that we can see it, proving nothing because I don't see all light? Why do we have a double standard to light and a dream? They both scientifically don't exist, you may tell me they exist because you experience them. But you only perceive them. Unless you can somehow objectively show me lights existence then the question is solved. Can anyone of us hold light in our hands? No, can we hold a thought in our hands? No. Difference? There is none... we believe light exists, we believe god exists (most of us). We can't prove either, thus who says then one is not the other? The only reason I came here to debate light is just to get the scientific analysis, I am disappointed at best. I am reduced to asking my high school physics teacher.

Originally posted by nico
Again it is simply amazing here... you assert light exists... it weighs nothing... dreams weigh nothing... yet we don't consider it real...Dreams are real. They are simply brain activity that occurs when one is asleep.Originally posted by nico
So go ahead appeal, and ad hom me all you want... it's rather tiresome.You seem to be the kind of person who gets stuck on an idea for a very long time, and even when evidence is presented to support the contrary, you do not change your stance. I have already shown that I was not attacking you, but you still choose to believe the contrary.Originally posted by nico
I am not seeing anything apart from nice and pretty calculations that essentially mean nothing when people are telling me "Lokkz heres you cans seez". Whom am I to believe here?Mathematical (rationalistic) equations that essentially prove nothing, and empiricist view that we can see it, proving nothing because I don't see all light?If you keep following this "nothing can be proved" idea, you will not get any further than this point.Originally posted by nico
Why do we have a double standard to light and a dream? They both scientifically don't exist, you may tell me they exist because you experience them.There is no double standard. Both are real.Originally posted by nico
Unless you can somehow objectively show me lights existence then the question is solved.One cannot "objectively" prove anything, since in every field there are things that are assumed to be true, and cannot be proven to be true. This was originally proven by Godel. Link: http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness.Originally posted by nico
I came here to debate light is just to get the scientific analysis, I am disappointed at best. I am reduced to asking my high school physics teacher.I predict he will give you essentially the same answer. You have to accept that some things are true that cannot be proven, and if you do, then one can prove that light exists as a logical consequence.

Originally posted by nico
Again it is simply amazing here... you assert light exists... it weighs nothing...

Who told you that light weighs nothing? where did you read this in this post?
Originally posted by nico

The funniest thing about it is that none of you have proven to me that light isn't god...

If you think that light is god, you should prove it.

Originally posted by nico

I am not seeing anything apart...

If light do not exist please don't use the word see without explaining its meaning.


Originally posted by nico

... from nice and pretty calculations that essentially mean nothing

Mathematics is a language used in certain circumstances
English is another language used in other circumstances.
There exist other languages like French, Spanish, Hebrew, Chinese etc. If you don't understand French, this does not necessarilly say that it means nothing. If you want to understand French litterature, the French language means a lot. If you want to understand physics, the mathematical language is much more apropriate than just regular English.

Originally posted by nico

when people are telling me "Lokkz heres you cans seez". Whom am I to believe here? Mathematical (rationalistic) equations that essentially prove nothing, ...

Why do you think tha your english proofs (which use inacurate concepts (since , for example, you obviously do not understand the meanning of the word "mass") is better than the Mathematical language.

Originally posted by nico

and empiricist view that we can see it, proving nothing because I don't see all light?
Yes you can see all light.
There is a proof, by solving Maxwell's equations, that there exist oscillating electromagnetic fields. There are different frequencies at which these fields can oscillate. By definition, These fields that we can feel with our eyes (in a range of frequency) are called light.

Originally posted by nico

Why do we have a double standard to light and a dream? They both scientifically don't exist

By your logic they do not exist. Scientifically they do.

Originally posted by nico

you may tell me they exist because you experience them. But you only perceive them.

They exist because they have properties that I can measure. Not only because I can perceive them.
Does oxygen exist? I cannot pereive it but I can measure it. So yes oxygen exists.

Originally posted by nico

Unless you can somehow objectively show me lights existence then the question is solved.

As I allready told you light exists objectively since they are solutions of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equation exist (so electric and magnetic fields exist) because of local gauge invariance.
If you don't understand what this means, that doesn't say that they don't exist. If you want a translation to english, it will be difficult since english is not the apropriate language to describe thes things.
In the same way that I can write you the following poem in french:

"Pour faire le portrait d'un oiseau.

Peindre d'abord une cage
avec une porte ouverte
peindre ensuite
quelque chose de joli
quelque chose de simple
quelque chose de beau
quelque chose d'utile
pour l'oiseau

...
...
alors vous arrachez tout doucement
une des plumes de l'oiseau
et vous écrivez votre nom dans un coin du tableau.

Jaques Prevert"

http://www.nal.qc.ca/do/prevert/oiseau.htm

If you don't understand French, it doesn't mean that this poem do not exist. You can translate it to english, but if you do not speak perfectly French, you won't understand it completely. If you want to really understand it, go and learn french.

The same happens for Maxwell's equations and local gauge invariance. If you don't understand, that doesn't mean that they do not exist and/or have any meanning. Translation to english is not apropriate. If you want to fully understand it, go and study maths and physics.


Originally posted by nico

Can anyone of us hold light in our hands? No, can we hold a thought in our hands? No. Difference? There is none... we believe light exists, we believe god exists (most of us). We can't prove either, thus who says then one is not the other?

Can you hold a song in your hand? no
Do songs exist? yes
Can you hold the planet Jupiter in your hand? no
Does the planet Jupiter exist? yes.


However does Jupiter have some properties that you can measure (different from the property of being able to be taken in your hand)? yes, it has a diameter, a mass, a temperature etc...

Does light have other properties that you can measure? yes. It has wavelength, frequency, polarization, energy, momentum. So light exists

Originally posted by nico

The only reason I came here to debate light is just to get the scientific analysis, I am disappointed at best. I am reduced to asking my high school physics teacher.

This thread began by you by stating that light doesn't have a mass so it doesn't exist. Since you don't know the meaning of mass you cannot say this.
I can only tell you that the mass is defined in Newton's laws of mechanic. They measure the inertia of a body
If Newton's laws are valid (and they are a very good approximation for everyday's life), it can be shown that when you take 2 bodies and merge them into one body, the mass of this body will be the sum of the individual masses. So it appears as if the mass is a measure of the "quantity of matter". This is why, I guess you said that a body cannot exist without having a mass. Since the real definition is not the quantity of matter but the inertia you cannot say this anymore.

Nico, you seem to have some sort of psychological hang-up with the idea of something without mass existing. It isn't clear why, but you seem to think that something without mass doesn't 'really exist'. I'm not sure what else to say to you here. Mass is merely one of the many properties that objects in our universe can either have or not have. Whether or not something has mass has not bearing on how 'real' it is. Have you decided to use whether or not something has mass as some sort of criteria for determining whether or not something is real? If so, you need to reevaluate your thinking.

There's a lot of experimental evidence that light exists and has no mass, and it's predicted by current theories in physics. What more are you looking for here? The fact that light has no mass doesn't have anything to do with god or dreams. The mere fact that god has no mass (how could anyone even know this?) would not be a good argument against the existence of god, since obviously things without mass can exist. Of course, this does not mean that god necessarily does exist; it just means that you can't use mass as an argument against his existence. The god question must still be evaluated separately, on its own merits; preferably in the religion forum.

As to whether or not light is god, that depends entirely on how you define 'god'. Most people consider god to be a supernatural deity. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that light is a supernatural deity. If you want to define god as 'something that has energy but no mass' then light would qualify.

I like the way you both summed it up for me. But if you re-read the thread you would notice that many here have re-iterated the fact that light has no mass. Let's be frank here, I know that light exists (perception). But I cannot prove light...light outside the realm of human bias. Not perceived, and non-existent, and no matter.

mat•ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mtr)
n.

Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.

Physics. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.


Matter is something that has mass, so where did you go wrong here? Matter exists in weight; you can't prove nothingness can you? Something here is obviously off, one of you is telling me mass and matter is inertia, then we have light has no mass is weight x3, then we further go into the explanation that light is existent because I can see it... of course I cannot see all light it would be impossible for me to perceive. Whom here is to be believed, it's starting to sound like the bible. :p I think the fact that we define matter as something is enough to totally disprove all this non-existance, existence theory. We have never even seen these photons, or protons, or neutrons. If I said hey look I seen the effects of a UFO would you believe me? Of course not... why should I believe you. Since light has no mass it can go as fast as itself (speed of light) and nothing with mass can (according to Nasor) yet 1100f is telling yes! Light has mass as defined by Neuton... who is being ignorant here? Mass going then faster then mass can go? :confused: Isn't science based on irrefutable proof of said existence? Science has flaws it seems.

Can you hold a song in your hand? no
Do songs exist? yes
Can you hold the planet Jupiter in your hand? no
Does the planet Jupiter exist? yes.

Songs don't exist independantly, they need perception. Same as light, Juptier if I were the size of the Sun I could. Things exist independant of human perception... ;) That is what I am discussing in essence.

Nico,

If I point a powerful laser at a steel plate and the beam burns a hole through it, how would you explain the effect? Would you pass the effect off as not real because I can't "prove" that photons of similar frequency that make up the laser beam exists? Would you feel differently if I pushed your hand into the burning hole giving you horrible burn? Or would you say it's just our perception that you have a burn and that to no one else it exists? See your rather ludicrous way of thought here? Nothing can be truly proved. But through scientific method we find through modeling and experimentation what works for the given phenomenon. I don't need to see the gas in my fuel tank every time I start my car to know it'll get me from point A to point B. My toast comes out of the toaster as crisp as I want it and I don't have to see the heat radiating off of coils to know it worked. We can't say that for every process that is invisible to our eyes that god must be responsible because we can't see him either. I'd pity the human race for how stupid and illogical we'd all sound; almost like that shitty Middle Ages way of thinking and I'd rather be dead because I ever start to think like that.

Me: If you want to believe light doesn't exist...I can believe god doesn't exist...since you have no proof.

You:WHOA! You actually got my whole point all along.
(Round of applause)

Don't be a smartass jerky. It was an example of your thought process. See how silly I sound? Well look in the mirror.

Originally posted by nico
I think the fact that we define matter as something is enough to totally disprove all this non-existance, existence theory.
What 'non-existence, existence' theory are you talking about? You are the only one here who thinks that something must have mass in order to exist. No one is proposing that light has a 'non-existent existence' because it has no mass; it simply exists and has no mass, end of story. The fact that it doesn't have mass in no way interferes with its ability to exist. There is no 'quasi-existence' about it. Having mass is simply not a requirement for something to exist in the universe. There is no paradox here. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. We know this, because we have verified experimentally and mathematically that light has no mass. If you want to argue that light doesn't exist, start a thread in the philosophy forum. Since light has no mass it can go as fast as itself (speed of light) and nothing with mass can.Correct.yet 1100f is telling yes! Light has mass as defined by Neuton... who is being ignorant here? Mass going then faster then mass can go? :confused: Isn't science based on irrefutable proof of said existence? Science has flaws it seems. Newton wasn't entirely correct; classical physics (the sort of physics pioneered by Newton) does not adequately explain the behavior of light, among other things. This is why we draw a distinction between classical physics and modern physics.

Science can never offer irrefutable proof of anything. It can only provide evidence in favor of or against theories. I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity won't suddenly stop working, but it would be pretty stupid to assume otherwise. Why? Because we have accumulated a vast quantity of evidence that the sun will in fact rise tomorrow and that gravity will continue to work properly for the foreseeable future. Similarly, there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence that light has no mass that it would be foolish to suppose otherwise.

Originally posted by nico
How many times have I said do not give me senses as an argument. Just because I see it doesn’t mean it's real.

Yes it does, everything u see has a real basis.


You should know this basic argument. I am sorry if you can comprehend the idea of this.


It is not an argument. I can comprehend a lot more than you.

Light in which you speak of is the light we perceive, you cannot prove lights existence by simply saying look there!

yes u can

Then X-rays don't exist, because I can't see it.


This highlights is your mental deficiency (not meant in a demeaning way). Because something exists when u see it does not mean something doesn't exist when u dont see it. Learn some logic.


that light does not exist when it clearly does

You refuse to answer this simple question. You have even said light is mass less, using your logic dreams are as real as me here right now. :cool:

Yes dreams have a real basis too. We can se them cant we?!

Nico:

Photon Mass
Photons have no rest mass. This means they have to travel at the speed of light, at which speed they do have mass.

Physics
Physics does not claim to describe exactly how things happen. Physics, as has been noted previously in this thread, is concerned with making models of how things work. Mechanical models have been used for a long time, so we find them to be more reliable than more recent models.

God
Provide me with one single, reliable piece of evidence for the existence of God, and I'd find your light/God theory less ridiculous. Shouldn't this be on a Philosophy/Religion forum anyway?

Nico:

You quite obviously have some serious misconceptions regarding the proof of the existence of light / God and whether or not they are one and the same thing.

Do you not understand the vast differences regarding the scientific approach to understanding both these phenomenon? – It’s really quite simple.

The existence of light is obvious in so much as it can be created, observed, manipulated, and measured. It has the ability to affect other existent entities and those effects on those entities can be observed without any doubt that the causal phenomenon at work is that of light- not fairies. Furthermore, light can be created by very specific and manufactured scientific apparatus and then destroyed at will – you can see this by switching your bedroom light on and off at night – first it’s there, then it’s gone, then it’s back again! Therefore, light exists. Period.

On the other hand, however, God, is nothing more than a hypothetical, and imaginary phenomenon devised and dreamt up by humans several thousand years ago, which has continued to act as a reassurance tool for billions of people who rely on sturdy beliefs that there IS a light at the end of the tunnel before eventually facing their inevitable fate. I must make the point that I hold nothing against people who find reassurances in having such faith but, having said that, I defy anybody to show me one single shred of evidence supporting the existence of a God – and one that can be backed up scientifically, of course. I agree that just because you can’t detect or observe something doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t exist. But the fact is that current scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, are probably considered factual these days rather than just theories, as there is a plethora of underlying evidence to support it.

Making a statement like God = Light is as nonsensical as stating that God = water. Using your logic I might as well state that God = nothimg!

Nico, you’re wasting your precious time trying to convince those that frequent this forum into believing that light = God. I admire your persistence, but your logic needs attention – good luck when recovering from the indubitable whitewash, and verbal trouncing you will receive if you persist for much longer.

I also think Nico, unless he has any more questions or input on the topic, owes a few people in this thread an apology after stating many times that we cannot comprehend and cannot back up our arguments. It is easy to ask a few simple questions but to get argumentative and essentially claim you are more intelligent than others when clearly u are wrong, is stupid.

Originally posted by nico

Matter is something that has mass

Wrong!
Matter is something that has mass and/or energy and/or momentum and/or angular momentum and/or weak charge and/or "color" charge (this color has nothing to do with the color we see, it is the name of the charge of the strong interraction)

Originally posted by nico

so where did you go wrong here? Matter exists in weight;

Wrong again!!

Weight is the gravitational force that act on matter (this is not the mass) So weight act on matter, matter does not exist in weight. Weight act on light so light is matter.

Originally posted by nico


you can't prove nothingness can you? Something here is obviously off, one of you is telling me mass and matter is inertia,

Wrong!!!
Nobody claimed that matter is inertia.
Mass is the measure of inertia according to Newton laws.
What was claimed was that according to Newton's laws, mass is additive, hence, in everyday's life, people interpret it as "quantity of matter". But this interpretation is no more valid where Newton's law are no more valid. Newton laws are no more valid at high velocities. Newton laws are no more valid when dealing with electromagnetic fields.

Originally posted by nico

then we have light has no mass is weight x3,

I really don't understand the meaning of this sentence.

Originally posted by nico

then we further go into the explanation that light is existent because I can see it... of course I cannot see all light it would be impossible for me to perceive.


It seems that you insist on not reading the answer people give you!
As I told in an earlier post in this thread, Electromagnetic waves are predicted by Maxwell's equations. Maxwell equations are predicted by local gauge invariance. I do not need the human perception to measure them and to know that they exist. From all the electromagnetic waves, those waves that are in a range that we can perceive are called light.

Originally posted by nico


Whom here is to be believed, it's starting to sound like the bible.;

Bible is considered by the people who beleive in it as something that was given by some super power (god). All in the bible is true.

When you study physics you learn to use tools to do research. No body here didn't give you as an explanation that the things are what they are because I said so, appart of one person who claims again and again in a dogmatic way: light has no mass so it does not exist, without even giving his definition of mass and of light.


Originally posted by nico


I think the fact that we define matter as something is enough to totally disprove all this non-existance, existence theory. We have never even seen these photons, or protons, or neutrons.

What we call matter are entities that have some definite properties that we can measure, that we can quantify.
And yes electrons, protons and neutrons can be seen. They are not seen by the mean of light, but you can see them by scattering other waves on them. In the same way that, for example, in fog you can still see objects by using a radar.

Originally posted by nico


If I said hey look I seen the effects of a UFO would you believe me? Of course not... why should I believe you.

People are performing experiments again and again, all over the world. Their results are open to anyone who wants to see the results, the designs, the algorithms, the computer programs etc. All is open to criticism. When someone does an experiment, it will report that he had teken one green apple, that he put it it on a weight made by ACME and that the dial read 100 g. If you don't beleieve him, you can do the same. Nobody forces you to believe him. I can assure you that if you write a paper and that you do not accept to give the details of your experiments or the details of your calculations, your paper will not be published. Science is not the patent office where you describe in the most obscure way your stuff.

Originally posted by nico


Since light has no mass it can go as fast as itself (speed of light) and nothing with mass can (according to Nasor) yet 1100f is telling yes! Light has mass as defined by Neuton...

Where did I say yes? I stated that mass is not the same thing as quantity of matter and originally mass is defined in Newton's law. Where did I say that light has mass?

Originally posted by nico


who is being ignorant here?

You speak about mass without knowing what this word mean (or without giving any definition).
You speak about light without knowing what this word mean (or without giving any definition).

So, I ask myself the same question.


Originally posted by nico


Mass going then faster then mass can go? :confused: Isn't science based on irrefutable proof of said existence? Science has flaws it seems.

If you understood that what was said was that mass is going faster than mass can go, then the flaws are in your understanding, since nobody said that (except you and me quoting you).

The orginal question that was rased was that is light "God' in the Christian idea.Some how this whole reply/responce forum has taken a horrorfling twist.People are copying and pasting random facts to prove a point about light.

Goddamn.

I mean light can be "measured"? How? What aspect of light to you measure? The measure that light lights a place? The radiation given off? Mass? Electic Charge?

One point is clear is that light is just a product of nuclear reaction in stars, a action that stars do to "exist".
Life depends on light but who gives a damn if light can be measured, and don't tell me about mathamatical equations, there just random letters and numbers pushed together to explain something that can be explain with normal senses

Originally posted by Pablo Savey
One point is clear is that light is just a product of nuclear reaction in stars, a action that stars do to "exist".

Light is produced by more than just nuclear reactions. It is a form of energy so can be created in many ways. It does seem however that all ENERGY for the universe is released in stars or star matter.

Originally posted by Pablo Savey
The orginal question that was rased was that is light "God' in the Christian idea.Some how this whole reply/responce forum has taken a horrorfling twist.People are copying and pasting random facts to prove a point about light.

Well, this a forum on physics. To tell you the truth, not being a christian, I really don't know a lot on the christian idea of god.
The original post asked about light being or not being matter. The posterof the first post have asked indeed questions. These are the question:
1. Does light have any matter at all?
2. Also does light have atoms?
3. But if light has no matter, and not atoms... what is it? Does it exist?

All the rest of this post was an explanation why he is asking these questions

This is what people are replying to. If the poster would have want to ask about god, there is in sciforum, a forum on religion.

Originally posted by Pablo Savey

Goddamn.

I dont think that it is apropriate to sweari on your first post.

Originally posted by Pablo Savey

I mean light can be "measured"? How? What aspect of light to you measure? The measure that light lights a place? The radiation given off? Mass? Electic Charge?

Light has several properties that you can measure. Among them you have energy, momentum, polarization, frequency, wavelength, velocity etc...

Originally posted by Pablo Savey

One point is clear is that light is just a product of nuclear reaction in stars, a action that stars do to "exist".

No, light is not the result of nuclear reactions. In some nuclear reactions you have production of γ rays, which is like light but much more energetic. The light that you see from the sun with naked eyes is not the result of nuclear reaction.

Originally posted by Pablo Savey

Life depends on light
Life depends on food also, and on water, and lot of other things.


Originally posted by Pablo Savey

but who gives a damn if light can be measured,

I give a damn if light can be measured, so do also 95% at least of the persons who post in the physics forum. Since in modern physics measurement is a major issue.

Originally posted by Pablo Savey

and don't tell me about mathamatical equations, there just random letters and numbers pushed together to explain something that can be explain with normal senses

Ce que j'ecris ici est comme une serie de lettres aleatoire, qui n'a aucun sens si vous ne parlez pas le Francais, et qui peux parfaitement etre expliquee en Anglais.

You can understand what I wrote, or you can also not understand it.
Mathematics is the most appropriate language used by physicists. If you don't understand it, that doesn't mean that describing something by using equation is wrong.

Originally posted by Pablo Savey

explain something that can be explain with normal senses

Well, physics doesn't rely only on our senses, but also on the intellect and the ability to understand things that our sense cannot catch.

God
Provide me with one single, reliable piece of evidence for the existence of God, and I'd find your light/God theory less ridiculous. Shouldn't this be on a Philosophy/Religion forum anyway?

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! OMG YOU PPL CAN'T COMPREHEND! Seriously it's disgusting you are telling me to provide existence for god, I could say miracles, fate, etc... But they don't count and not only that they don't explain God they only explain a effect not the cause. Light is the same, and obviously none of you get it. Show me a source of evidence for light. :rolleyes:

Wrong!
Matter is something that has mass and/or energy and/or momentum and/or angular momentum and/or weak charge and/or "color" charge

Then I would assume the definition I have was incorrect...that you can explain to me how a energy is mass. How light that has no weight be mass.

Weight is the gravitational force that act on matter (this is not the mass) So weight act on matter, matter does not exist in weight. Weight act on light so light is matter.


So light is bounded by Gravity?

I really don't understand the meaning of this sentence.


3 ppl said that light has NO MASS... are they ignorant?

I do not need the human perception to measure them and to know that they exist.

Of course you do, you experience them through a machine. How do I know what I see is real? How can I trust something that could invariably show me nothingness? They exist yes outside our bodies, but can you prove to me that they exist. Again not by saying look...


light has no mass so it does not exist, without even giving his definition of mass and of light.


Re-read the thread... I gave my explanations for both.


People are performing experiments again and again, all over the world.

That proves?

Where did I say that light has mass?


You said light had mass because it moves.

If you understood that what was said was that mass is going faster than mass can go, then the flaws are in your understanding, since nobody said that (except you and me quoting you).

Mass = not light
Mass = cannot go as fast as light.
Light = mass at the speed of light.
:rolleyes:

Photon Mass
Photons have no rest mass. This means they have to travel at the speed of light, at which speed they do have mass.


Prove it... not a mathematical equation, PROVE IT!

Originally posted by nico
[Prove it... not a mathematical equation, PROVE IT! [/B]

Mass is a mathematical concept. It is defined in Newtons laws which are differential equations.If you don't want me to use mathematics, please don't use mathematical concepts to prove that light do not exist.

And if you don't want me to use my language that is the apropriate language, I can ask you the same, don't use english to prove that light does not exist.

Finally, don't shout.

I CAN SHOUT IF I WANT TO! Seriously who do you think you are?:confused:

Your language is nothing but numerical semantics, if you cannot prove it with English then the theory cannot work. You see secondly how do you KNOW that the mathematical equation you give me is wrong? Can you prove to me that it's right? Because you would have to prove to me that 1+1=2 with a complex arrangements of mathematical equations. You are in essence putting faith and believing something you refuse to accept that has no existence. You use math language yet you wouldn't be able to make sure that every calculation you make is right would you? So please do your math crap... means nothing. Also I guess that you have forfeited the belief that light can go as fast as it does with mass. LOL!

Originally posted by nico
You see secondly how do you KNOW that the mathematical equation you give me is wrong?

I don't know if the equations are right or wrong, but they define some very precise concept which is called mass. When physicists say that light has no mass, this is a mathematical statement. If you don't want to use mathematics, please don't use the sentence light has no mass.

What are tring to prove here guys? I've already proven that light exists in my last post so why the shouting? Are we trying to prove that light has mass now?

Right Im off to bed and I hope this is sorted out in the (my) morning!

LOL rriight keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll believe it.

I don't know if the equations are right or wrong,

So you don't even know if your supposed "language" makes sense, lol. You don't even then know what your "lingo" consists of, you aren't making your case more compelling.

but they define some very precise concept which is called mass.

1+1= Mass :rolleyes: you don't know you said your equations cannot be proven to correct, thus they are worthless. Hey look this is what it essentially means then in semantics: jfklajdlf;jsdahg;ahg;oihaoihg! Thus I am right light exists. See how stupid your assertion is.


If you don't want to use mathematics, please don't use the sentence light has no mass.


You can use math, but it still does not explain the existence of mass, it's explains well nothing if you can't even support your mathematical assertions.

Originally posted by nico
LOL rriight keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll believe it.

I will never believe it. I KNOW it because I have proved it. Why do u keep posting here when the questions as far as I know have been answered? U dont have to 'feel' u are right all the time u know. Many people make mistakes. Einstein himself made mistakes. U dont need to get all defensive. Just acknowledge that u are wrong this time and go home.

Originally posted by nico
I don't know if the equations are right or wrong,

So you don't even know if your supposed "language" makes sense, lol. You don't even then know what your "lingo" consists of, you aren't making your case more compelling.

When I say that I don't know if the equations are right or wrong I don't mean what you say. In the same sense that when you say that light does not exist, I am sure that you understand the english, but you are not 100% that this is right.

Originally posted by nico

but they define some very precise concept which is called mass.

1+1= Mass :rolleyes: you don't know you said your equations cannot be proven to correct, thus they are worthless. Hey look this is what it essentially means then in semantics: jfklajdlf;jsdahg;ahg;oihaoihg! Thus I am right light exists. See how stupid your assertion is.

No what would be stupid is if I don't understand what jfklajdlf;jsdahg;ahg;oihaoihg! means but saying jfklajdlf;jsdahg;ahg;oihaoihg! implies light exists, or not understanding the meaning of mass, but saying light has no mass so it does not exists


Originally posted by nico


If you don't want to use mathematics, please don't use the sentence light has no mass.


You can use math, but it still does not explain the existence of mass, it's explains well nothing if you can't even support your mathematical assertions. [/B]

I can perfectly well support the mathematical assertions.
Mass is defined in the following way: The world is invariant under the Poincare group. The Poincare group is has two Casimir operators. All particles are irreducible representations of the Poincare group. Those representations have been classified. One of the Casimir operators has eigenvalues that is called mass (or to be more precise it is the mass squared). Particles that are travelling at the velocity c (about 300000 km/sec) have as eigenvalue 0. They are called massless, which means that their mass is zero.
Light travels at speed c, so according to the definition of mass, it will be called massless.
When physicist say that light is massless: this is exactly what it means. If you don't understand this definition, don't use it.