Strange

Or height.

Because the measurement is not made in the photon's reference frame. This has been explained to you repeatedly, in many different way, by several different people. What is the point of this thread? Is it simply to demonstrate you unwillingness/inability to learn? Or are you just spouting nonsense for the craic?

You are the one over-claiming by saying that these subjective judgements are objective. As you didn't answer my question, I assume you don;t have an answer and you realise that it is not an objective measurement.

Well, initially you are stationary, relative to the wall, then you push yourself away with increasing speed. That sounds like acceleration to me. And f=m.a

The force is going to be proportional to how quickly you make yourself accelerate away from the wall.

I haven't watched your video (because it's a video; therefore not a good source of technical information) but you may be mistaking an analogy for science. He may not be wrong, but it sounds as if he is not being very accurate, either. That is the thing about popular science; it is presented as simplifications, analogies and approximations for people who don't (yet) understand the details. One would like to think it stimulates a desire to learn. And it does in a lot of cases. And, just to be clear, I have no disagreement with what Tyson may or may not have said, but with what you have said in this thread. Which is generally just wrong or, at best, confused.

It is not a matter of "belief". Because you are being very unclear. Deliberately, I assume. There is no "physics not under the influence of time". Unless you want to present some. Photons don't experience anything. They are photons. Please feel free. One more time: do you have a point to make?

Sigh. What is the point of this endless trolling. We observe the physics of light. The physics applies to light. Light does not cannot observe anything. Light does not observe anything. If you have a theory or some evidence that contradicts current physics, then feel free to present it. Simply repeatedly saying "hey guys, I don't any math or science but here my nonsensical ideas" isn't very productive.

Pressure is different from force. Stiletto heels can do serious damage to a wooden floor because the weight (force) is concentrated in a small area.

Er, then time doesn't disappear either. You can't accept time dilation without length contraction. Unless you are rejecting the theory of special relativity in its entirety and replacing it with your own theory. In your theory, please show how you derive time dilation as an effect due to motion, while not length contraction does not occur. The math for this in SR is very simple. So it should be straightforward for you to present your alternative here. Then you can show us how well it matches experimental results...

No. I said (again) the exact opposite of that. I know English is not your first language, but really... What units are you measuring "openness" in?

Right. And we all agree that you cannot define or measure these things from the photon's frame (because there is no such thing as the "photon's frame"; it is undefined). But that is irrelevant because there is no reason to try and do this. You are being consistently illogical by simply repeating the same statements, even after things have been explained to you. This is a science forum. Are you interested in discussing (and perhaps learning) science or are you just here to air your misunderstandings? Actually, if this extrapolation to a photon's frame were valid (it isn't) then it would actually be: Photon's frame = Space, Space. Which raises another flaw in your argument. You are saying that time disappears. But so does space (in the direction of travel). You can take the limit as these approach zero and show that photons still move at the speed of light. So your application of "logic" (which appears to mean "what make sense to me") fails.

It isn't accurate (or meaninful) from the photon's point of view. But that is not what we do. We measure the speed of light in our frame of reference. As photons very obviously do travel, I'm not quite sure what the point of your post is.

Yes you can, because travelling at the speed of light is not a valid reference frame. What this means is that you cannot say anything about what an observer moving at the speed of light would see (because it involves dividing by zero). Exactly. And that is part of the definition of observer (in relativity). As I said before, you are mixing up "APPLY" and "OBSERVE". We know (as observers) what the physics associated with light is. So, again, what is your point?

Yes. Any observer will observe light behaving the same way. But, you cannot be an observer travelling at the speed of light. So, the laws of physics apply to something (light) even if it is not an "observer". Can you just state what point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say that we can't know (or can't be sure what we know) about light because it travels at the speed of light? If so, what experimental evidence do you have to support that idea?

What do you mean by "not an observer"? But this sounds like that old philosophy joke, "if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there ..."

Yes, this is an objective measurement. (Whether it is recorded or not). Well done. However, if he recorded the fact that they were "pretty" or "open minded" then that would be a subjective opinion. (Whether it is recorded or not).

Because we are the observer of light, not the other way round. What is a non-observer? What are you trying to say. I assumed at first that you were trying to clarify your understanding of photons and related terminology. Now you seems to be saying that current science is wrong ... or something?

I don't see how that is relevant. You can choose to start thinking linearly and rationally. It is up to you to learn (if you want to). You choose to make random incoherent posts full of numerology and basic mistakes. You can't blame anyone else for your current behaviour. You need to stop and learn basic arithmetic (how to write down numbers, what fractions and decimals are, etc) and algebra (what equations looks like and how to manipulate them) before you start making random sentences about science and maths that is beyond you. Your choice.

The meaning of "e" is "exponent". I'm not sure what else you want to know.\ The only difference I can see is that you have a spurious extra "." in the first version. That is not a valid format for a number. Any number can be represented as a percentage, just by multiplying it by 100.

Er ... no. (Sorry, don;t know what else to say )

Then it probably wasn't a camera. It was probably a radar. This is a device that measures speed. Quantitatively and objectively. If so, you need to explain (quantitatively and objectively) what it is you are measuring, and how you use a video to measure it. You seem to be saying that irony and "lateral humour" (whatever that is) are key attributes. Perhaps you could explain how these are measured, what the units are, and how this measurement is performed using a video camera. Even if you are able to do that (which I doubt, after 6 pages of vague waffle) you then need to show (quantitatively and objectively) how these measurements relate to the goals you want to achieve. OK. So it is a subjective judgement after all. The only objective, quantifiable aspect is the number of people you get to vote on how ironic they think the candidate is. This does not require a video just a sheet of paper and, perhaps, a calculator. This does not give you objective data about the candidate, just about the number of people who vote. And then we have to rely on your claims that irony is somehow a useful attribute in a judge. What a complete waste of time.

Mass is a measure of the "amount" of stuff. It is hard to define, except as mass. It is not really a measure of the number of atoms. But if it were, it wouldn't be zero or 1 or unknown, it would a very, very large number. It is quite easy to calculate the number of atoms in a given mass of a substance. (Avogadro's number, if you are interested.)

What he said. I am an engineer who has studied science and math, and been involved in training people. I see no practical use for this idea. Yes, I have used tesselation of surfaces into triangles for 3D graphics. But I have also implemented 3D graphics which produces much better effects without that crude approximation. So if it is a choice between "triangles" and "no triangles", practically I will go for "no triangles". Unless you can give one real example where it simplifies the description of something. Anything.

Then maybe it is an optical illusion. There are optical illusion that only some people see, but in general they have the same effect on everybody. I can't really comment because I am not really sure what effect you are describing (for example, the black and white flower in your post just looks black and white to me) and I don't know what you mean by the "standard model". Vision is a very complex thing. You may have discovered a new optical illusion.