mooeypoo

What happens to color-blind people? Alternatively, what happens when the room is dark, before you turn the lights on, and there aren't any colors? Do things float around the room because they have no color? IF I come in the middle of the night and dye your bed red, would it weigh more in the morning?

Wordsalad again. This isn't how light behaves, unless you have any other EVIDENCE to show us. You contradict yourself, and you don't know how light works. WHITE light hits objects, some of it is absorbed, and the part that bounces OUT is what we see as color. That's why BLACK objects (absorbing all the light) are black. Red objects absorb most of the light and reflect *off* the red color. Blue absorb most other than blue. Learn some physics, please. You're making no sense. An atom has no color. Do you know what color is? How 'bout you learn about it before you decide you know best? Even if yuo want to have "artificial color" which is, say, some colorful substance, it will be a molecule (that, again, absorbs certain colors and reflects others). It won't be a single atom. Go learn physics. In short, I think it's safe to say that what you DID manage to prove so far is that you don't know what you're own theory says, you cannot answer our questions, you don't care to test, and your theory is untestable. Good luck with that. ~mooey And you still owe me an answer. I don't see your "multiple phones" experiment. Nor do any of my coworkers.

Right, but we know light is also absorbed. That's HOW you get color. And if lightis absorbed and has mass, the it will increase the mass of the object. But this can also be measured differently: If I have an electronic weight, it should show an increase in weight (without ANYTHING on it) when I shine a light on it, and an even bigger increase in weight when I shine red light on it. Is this a right assumption, or is this again not something that will work? Also, you owe us an answer on my previous post.

I just did. I think there's something wrong with your eyesight, Victor. I see one phone. And I don't see a difference between moving it after it was under teh white light and moving it after it was under a blue light. If you want, I have lots of Colorful LEDs here. I can keep testing. ~mooey

I happen to have a yellow bulb here. And I have a white one too. I also have my cellphone. I put my cellphone for quite a while under the bulbs (separately, it's now under the yellow one, for 10 minutes already). I don't see several mobile phones. I see one phone. I turned off the light, and I still see one phone. I have a dark room here, so I walked into it, just out of curiosity. I turned the screen off -- nothing. I turned it on -- one phone, glowing. I moved it around, I tilted it, I don't see what you're claiming. Also, my phone isn't heavier even though it just absorbed (and reflected) quite a lot of light. It *is* hotter. It's not heavier. Explain. You can call it whatever you want, but this phenomena simply doesn't exist. What you write happens does NOT happen. What you claim is simply bunk. No matter what you call it. ~mooey

I gave you an experiment to do, you quoted me on it. It's up to *YOU* to prove your own theory. However, seeing as the weight of objects does not change in relation to how much light is in the room, I'd say you are in need of explanation. Also, do answer my question about the magnetism. You claimed light was attracted -- by what means? Magnetism? ~mooey

Attracts?? So.. it's magnetic now?! I don't understand, Victor. You either follow up on your claims to the physical conclusion whatever it may be, or you stomp your feet in the ground despite reality, inventing your own terminology. You just said it's not about intensity (in the posts above) but rather the COLOR. I designed an experiment that has to do with the colors alone. Your counter argument makes no sense. Wordsalad. You're either speaking physics, or you're not. That's not physics. I don't understand what it is you're saying. Victor, "If I told you "everything moves the oobapalooba. It shifts and vibrates like a fish floating on the splash of water. Then it moves the surrounding and increases the flaflas." Would you accept my words as physics? I would hope not. First problem is that my terminology makes no sense because it's not defined. What is "oobapalooba", and wtf is 'flaflas'. Nothing unless I define them properly. Second, the sentence in general makes no sense, but the most important issue is taht even if all MADE sense, I have no evidence of anything. That sentence is exactly like the one you're saying, only replace "oobapalooba" with "veegtron", fish with 'light colors' and water with mass. You're not in a babble-forum, you're in a science forum. You're not even answering our questions properly, let alone supplying evidence. My experiment shows your theory is wrong. You need to supply evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Take it already. ~mooey

Okay, let me ask you (again) my previous question, only try to make it clearer: If we assume: Light has mass and weight. The *color* of light is affecting its weight. The color of objects is produced by the light when part of it is absorbed in the object and part of it is reflected. The part that is reflected gets into our eyes, and we see a certain color. When light is absorbed in an object, it should add to its weight, because the color of the light has weight. It occurs to me, then, that the test should be simple. Put a blue cup, red cup, black cup and white cup on an accurate electronic scale (which on its own). Measure their weights. Turn off all sources of light in the room. There is no light to be absorbed now, and no color in either. Measure the weights again in complete darkness. If your theory is correct, the cups should weigh less. The black cup should have the biggest difference, since black absorbs all light (red/blue/etc included) - so when there WAS a source of light, the black cup should have "gained" weight. Red should, according to you, have a larger difference than the blue one, and white should, for the most part, remain more or less the same. Is this experiment working for you to test this part f your theory, Victor? If it is, it seems to me to be quite simple. We should have results quickly and see if your theory is right. ~mooey

http://www.amazon.com/Gene-Cloning-DNA-Analysis-Introduction/dp/1405181737 Don't post illegal links here, please. This seems to be a book you need to *buy*. Getting it free online despite the fact you're supposed to buy it involves illegal content, and we don't allow that in the forum. ~mooey

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking how reflection and refraction works? Or why colors are separated from "white" color? These are all well established, well explained phenomena that have nothing to do with mass. Light has no mass. You keep avoiding putting up evidence. The picture you supplied, on top of being photoshopped, is not evidence to anything. It's just colorful projectors... Here's a suggestion for you: Read about the subject you claim to overturn. It sounds like you have no idea how mainstream physics explains the current phenomena and instead of learning about them you invent your own interpretation, and then insist yours work without evidence. Maybe understanding what's *actually* going on will solve the problem entirely. ~mooey

davisdesigns, the mention of another thread wasn't meant to call you a liar or a copycat, it was an observation and the inclusion of the link was to help *you* see what the discussion on the other thread led to. We don't have to start discussions from scratch if we already discussed something similar. People posted the link to the other thread so you can go over that one and see other options people already discussed. Beyond that, people DID make quite number of suggestions for you. The hope was that you come back with either more questions so we can focus on specific issues or take the advice and figure out the poisons. Read CaptainPanic's post again. He doesn't just give you the options, he tells you which should be preferable. You can send your food items to a lab and pay a ton of money. That is your choice. It would be appreciated if you're a tad less confrontational with people who spent time answering you. ~mooey

We did use methods that found light to NOT have mass, so the burden of proof here is on you. You should be careful, though; how are you planning to control for the weight of the dye itself (the properties that make it, which, unlike the light, ARE made of matter and molecules) -- as opposed to whatever other dye you're using? One drop of each might weigh differently without relation to the color. So here's a question that just came to me. If it's the LIGHT itself that weighs more (or less) -- then if you put blue dye in a cup and weigh it, and then shut off all lights in the lab and weigh the same cup, the weight should be different. Is it different?

With what type of equipment? I can't wait for you to come back to us with the full experimental design, the controls, and the result. Revolutionize physics. ~mooey

As was mentioned before,your site doesn't have a single proper piece of evidence. It only offers a lecture-type series of images that provide no explanation as to the current phenomena we know explained by current theories, or your evidence for ANY of your claims. We're not here to promote your site. We are here to discuss scientific data and scientific theory. Can you provide ANY sort of evidence at ALL ?

! Moderator Note There's another thread on this. Don't open any more. Closed.

Victor, you already have 2 threads open on 2 different aspects of the SAME theory. Don't open any more of these. One thread at a time. Spamming the forum with the same theory will not help you prove it.

I said no such thing. You seem to say that these waves "bump" or "hit" something, which means that these waves are moving in a medium. Is that your claim? I simply ask that you clarify, because if this IS your claim, you need to bring forth an explanation and evidence for this. If that's the point, then light hits *something*. Our current understanding (which has evidence and repeatable experiments and proof) is that light does NOT require a medium to move in, even though it's a wave. You propose different. Bring up evidence. I'm not arguing that light isn't a wave. I want to see your evidence that these waves move in a medium and "bump" the medium. When light is emitted from the sun, it moves in space before it hits the atmosphere. Is it "bumping" anything along the way, or just in the atmosphere? If it does, "bump" things in the atmosphere, then I recommend you go back up and read the Rayleigh scattering effect and the links I posted, since this is *explained* without the necessity of adding mass to the light. You make claims, Victor. You need to bring the proof for these claims. ~mooey

Viktor, it's very hard to discuss this theory with you if your statements are vague and use non-common terms. What is 'blows'? What do you mean by that? blows made by what? Light hits what to produce these blows, do you mean it's moving in a medium? That's also against the mainstream current thinking, so that, too, will require you produce evidence for. Also, I would like you to explain if when you speak of light you refer to *all* the electromagnetic spectrum or just the segment of visible light. Do radio waves (which are outside the visible spectrum) have mass too? If so, how would you propose we see the effects of them having mass, and if not, then the fact they too have energy might prove as a problem to your idea. Finally, Victor, we're not a sound-stage, we're a scientific forum. I think you should go over our "So you have a new theory" sticky post, it has a lot of points for you to take into account if you wish to convince us of the validity of your theory. We ask that you substantiate your statements, and making a repeated claim that has no proof attached to it (or evidence of any kind) is not considered substantiation. Your idea stands against current theories that are well established with evidence and observation and repeatable experiments. The only way for you to convince anyone of the merit of your claim is if you produce counter-evidence. One-liner empty claims won't do.

You mean each color is a different frequency? This supports current understanding of redshift, not quite the idea you're proposing? Again, Victor, what is your actual evidence for light having mass, other than just one-liners?

The fact *you* can't think of no other explanation doesn't mean none exists. In fact, we posted a few of those explanations to various phenomena. So what is the evidence that you have to show us that light has weight?

That would be because of the mass-energy equivalence, wouldn't it? That doesn't mean the photon has mass, it just means energy and mass are interchangeable through formulas like E=mc^2 ...

The thought experiment of "if it traveled the speed of light" breaks down. There's no answer for that. The closest answer we can consider is for a situation where you travel as close as possible to the speed of light. There is no reference frame AT the speed of light. If you were very very close to the speed of light and turned on a flashlight, the speed of the beam will be c relative to you, and c relative to the tunnel wall you're in. It's always c, regardless of your frame.

That's an interesting question. Moving *at* the speed of light makes things impossible, but let's say moving very very close to it. 99.99% the speed of light. I can't say I'm an expert on Relativity, so this will be my thought-experiment guesstimate; I'm hoping one of the more knowledgeable physicists will chip in here. The speed of light is the same regardless of your reference frame. So, even though you're moving, the light beam travels from your flashlight and to the surroundings at the speed of light, which means it will hit the wall and bounce back as if you were standing there, and so yes.. you should be able to see your surroundings. You will see a very weird surroundings, though, because on those speeds you also need to take into account length contraction (and time dilation, but that would be less of a visible effect). This will only "work", even in theory only, if you are LESS than the speed of light. If you insist on going at the speed of light, this entire thought experiment fails since you - as an object with mass - simply cannot. In order to go at the speed of light, you must be massless. It makes no sense to wonder *at* the speed of light. ~mooey

You know, the moment I posted it, I realized this caveat. I accept your point.