The Redshift

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

Which ones weigh more, gamma rays or radio waves?

 

The gamma ray because it has color.

[mooeypoo]

The light it attracts the color of the cups, but the drinks they will not attract the color of the light.

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.

 

The weight is due to the amount of colors, 5 litres of water is stronger than 1 liter of water.

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.

 

 

The distance of a vibration is infinite, until no longer vibrate the particle that moves the waves of mobile phones.

Wordsalad. You're either speaking physics, or you're not. That's not physics.

 

I don't understand what it is you're saying.

 

I have done me this question, so try to answer it by creating a new theory called "Theory of the Veegtrón".

 

Everything moves the "Veegtrón", for example: a magnet attracts iron without touching it, that's called magic, the Veegtrón is what is between the magnet and iron, and removes the magic of the magnet. It tries to explain the theory of the veegtrón.

 

 

 

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

[doG]

The gamma ray because it has color.

What color is that? Gamma?

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

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

 

What experiment you did?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The gamma ray because it has color.

But you said red weighs more than blue. If the spectrum goes from red, heavy, to blue, light, and that trend continues, gamma should be the lightest of all, and radio waves incredibly heavy. How does it work that shorter wavelengths (bluer colors) are lighter than red light, until they get to gamma rays, when they become heavy again?

[mooeypoo]

What experiment you did?

 

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

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

What color is that? Gamma?

 

I don't know much about gamma rays, but from what I've seen on the internet have many colors. It is possible to be a transparent color and if you put a red lens change to red.

 

I'm not sure of this response, but if you can help me understand the gamma rays, I thank you.

 

Tell me that you know about gamma rays to check with my theory of the weight of the light.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

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

 

"The Veegtrón magnetic color"...

 

Put you under a yellow or white bulb and suddenly moves a cell phone with the screen turned on and you'll see several mobile phones.

 

Put you under a red or blue bulb suddenly moves a cell phone with the screen turned on and you'll see several mobile phones.

 

Put you under a bulb off and suddenly moves a cell phone with the screen turned on and you'll see several mobile phones.

 

I called this phenomenon the universe magnetized color.

[mooeypoo]

"The Veegtrón magnetic color"...

 

Put you under a yellow or white bulb and suddenly moves a cell phone with the screen turned on and you'll see several mobile phones.

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.

 

Put you under a red or blue bulb suddenly moves a cell phone with the screen turned on and you'll see several mobile phones.

 

Put you under a bulb off and suddenly moves a cell phone with the screen turned on and you'll see several mobile phones.

 

I called this phenomenon the universe magnetized color.

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

 

 

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

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

 

 

 

You must move sharply the cell to the right and left you can see several mobile phones.

 

[mooeypoo]

You must move sharply the cell to the right and left you can see several mobile phones.

 

 

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

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

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

 

The color of the light is only attracted by gravity not the matter.

[mooeypoo]

The color of the light is only attracted by gravity not the matter.

 

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.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

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.

 

Using electronic weighing it won't work, each color of light will pass through the atoms and the color to touch the weight then you will no longer touch it because it bounce and the weight of the first color will be lost and so on.

 

Why can not weigh the color of the light, because the colors bounce taking the weight and we will never have a cumulative weight of colors of light.

 

We must weigh a dot of color on an atom to know how much weight the color.

[mooeypoo]

Using electronic weighing it won't work, each color of light will pass through the atoms and the color to touch the weight then you will no longer touch it because it bounce and the weight of the first color will be lost and so on.

Wordsalad again. This isn't how light behaves, unless you have any other EVIDENCE to show us.

 

Why can not weigh the color of the light, because the colors bounce taking the weight and we will never have a cumulative weight of colors of light.

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.

 

We must weigh a dot of color on an atom to know how much weight the color.

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

 

Also, you owe us an answer on my previous post.

 

And you still owe me an answer. I don't see your "multiple phones" experiment. Nor do any of my coworkers.

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

 

 

 

While in principle this is correct,you are unlikely to have a scale available that will show the difference. If you heat an object up without losing any matter it will have gained mass, but it is not normally significant or considered heavier.

 

For your object to gain 1 gram you need to input about 25 million kilo-watt hours of energy without losing any.

 

That's quite the light you would be shining on it!

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

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.

 

All matter has color and therefore weighs. Up a quark has color and a bit of quark has color but not what you saw.

The color is mass and therefore colored light weighs, depending on the image.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

All matter has color and therefore weighs.

Why?

[doG]

Why?

Probably some new form of synesthesia where you feel color instead of seeing it.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

All matter has color and therefore weighs.

 

Why?

 

For example: when we will our room of sleep, first thing we do in turn on the light and what we see: 1) television, bed, closet and air conditioner. Also see: 2) atoms. And in addition to atoms what we see: 3) colors.

 

This means that the atoms are made of colors. If we divide an atoms in 1,000,000,000 bits of what we see: 4) matter or colors.

 

I think that now we will not see matters but colors.

[mooeypoo]

For example: when we will our room of sleep, first thing we do in turn on the light and what we see: 1) television, bed, closet and air conditioner. Also see: 2) atoms. And in addition to atoms what we see: 3) colors.

 

This means that the atoms are made of colors. If we divide an atoms in 1,000,000,000 bits of what we see: 4) matter or colors.

 

I think that now we will not see matters but colors.

 

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?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This means that the atoms are made of colors.

Why? Color is already explained by showing how atoms reflect light of different wavelengths differently.

 

I think that now we will not see matters but colors.

I thought people had tried this, in particle accelerators, and found matter.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

Why? Color is already explained by showing how atoms reflect light of different wavelengths differently.

 

 

I thought people had tried this, in particle accelerators, and found matter.

 

Photos of collisions of atoms I've seen have colors

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Photos of collisions of atoms I've seen have colors

Any photograph you see of a collision of atoms is colored by the physicists after the fact, so it makes sense to a viewer. You can't detect individual subatomic particles in a collision with visible light -- it's physically impossible.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

Any photograph you see of a collision of atoms is colored by the physicists after the fact, so it makes sense to a viewer. You can't detect individual subatomic particles in a collision with visible light -- it's physically impossible.

 

But what they see before coloring her must have color, maybe gray color.