Does a shadow have mass?

[phision]

objects that have shadows, have greater mass, as they are being struck by, energy waves or partical streams. shadows indicate mass being added to the shading element! the mass being added, is the mass of the shadow. equal to mass~energy of the waves/particals being blocked.

[sanctus]

objects that have shadows, have greater mass, as they are being struck by, energy waves or partical streams. shadows indicate mass being added to the shading element! the mass being added, is the mass of the shadow. equal to mass~energy of the waves/particals being blocked.

 

Ok, that is your definition, but then tell me how this works in following case:

 

I have 2 lamps/lasers pointing at each other so that there is destructive interference. Now if I put an object around in the middle between the 2 lasers, there is no shadow and after your definition this no-shadow now has a lot of energy...

[Moontanman]

objects that have shadows, have greater mass, as they are being struck by, energy waves or partical streams. shadows indicate mass being added to the shading element! the mass being added, is the mass of the shadow. equal to mass~energy of the waves/particals being blocked.

 

Some shadows are not generated by blocking but by bending the particles around the object, how does this figure into your idea? Photons impacting an object would not add mass to it , I think your idea of shadows having mass is busted.

[Pyrotex]

It's easy to defend phision's argument.

Let's define a "shadow" as a brick.

A brick has mass.

Therefore a shadow has mass.

 

Wait a minute. That is logically unsatisfying.

 

I know, let's define a "shadow" as a metaphor for microscopic black holes in orbit about Pluto.

The black holes have mass.

Therefore a shadow has mass.

 

Wait a minute. That doesn't seem quite right either. Hmm.

I know, let's define "shadow" as an integral part of any system containing matter and light.

The system has mass.

Therefore a shadow has mass.

 

No. I don't like that one either.

 

I know, let's define "shadow" as the poly-dimensional projection of my brother Bufford.

Bufford has mass (quite a bit of it, in fact), therefore a shadow has mass.

 

Wait, wait, wait, wait...

I think I see the problem here. I keep giving bogus definitions to "shadow" that make no sense.

 

Is there a dictionary around here? ... ... ...

[phision]

Thus all I need to do is think of a shadow, and it will have mass (because according to you the mass is then a part of a system - me).

 

If science was so easy.

 

the thought of shadow would be part of your system! your thoughts wouldn't add mass to another system.:shrug:

[phision]

Ok, that is your definition, but then tell me how this works in following case:

 

I have 2 lamps/lasers pointing at each other so that there is destructive interference. Now if I put an object around in the middle between the 2 lasers, there is no shadow and after your definition this no-shadow now has a lot of energy...

 

there would be two shadows! try it and see.:shrug:

[phision]

Some shadows are not generated by blocking but by bending the particles around the object, how does this figure into your idea? Photons impacting an object would not add mass to it , I think your idea of shadows having mass is busted.

 

when photons(particles) are redirected(bent) by an object there is an energy transfer between the photon and the shading element. photons being absorbed by the shading element add energy to it, this stored energy has mass. it`s all relative!:shrug:

[sanctus]

ther would be two shadows! try it and see.;)

Have you tried? Ok you can say that there would be 2 shadows, because if you take the light on the right away you WOULD have the shadow from the lamp on the left at the right side of the object. But if the light on the right is there, there is no shadow.

Have you tried to direct light on place where there is shadow? tried it and you will see there is no shadow where you point the light :shrug:

[phision]

It's easy to defend phision's argument.

Let's define a "shadow" as a brick.

A brick has mass.

Therefore a shadow has mass.

 

Wait a minute. That is logically unsatisfying.

 

I know, let's define a "shadow" as a metaphor for microscopic black holes in orbit about Pluto.

The black holes have mass.

Therefore a shadow has mass.

 

Wait a minute. That doesn't seem quite right either. Hmm.

I know, let's define "shadow" as an integral part of any system containing matter and light.

The system has mass.

Therefore a shadow has mass.

 

No. I don't like that one either.

 

I know, let's define "shadow" as the poly-dimensional projection of my brother Bufford.

Bufford has mass (quite a bit of it, in fact), therefore a shadow has mass.

 

Wait, wait, wait, wait...

I think I see the problem here. I keep giving bogus definitions to "shadow" that make no sense.

 

Is there a dictionary around here? ... ... ...

 

dictioary.com says - shadow

 

–noun 1. a dark figure or image cast on the ground or some surface by a body intercepting light.

2. shade or comparative darkness, as in an area.

3. shadows, darkness, esp. that coming after sunset.

4. shelter; protection: sanctuary in the shadow of the church.

5. a slight suggestion; trace: beyond the shadow of a doubt.

6. a specter or ghost: pursued by shadows.

7. a hint or faint, indistinct image or idea; intimation: shadows of things to come.

8. a mere semblance: the shadow of power.

9. a reflected image.

10. (in painting, drawing, graphics, etc.) a. the representation of the absence of light on a form.

b. the dark part of a picture, esp. as representing the absence of illumination: Rembrandt's figures often emerge gradually from the shadows.

 

11. (in architectural shades and shadows) a dark figure or image cast by an object or part of an object upon a surface that would otherwise be illuminated by the theoretical light source. Compare shade (def. 16).

12. a period or instance of gloom, unhappiness, mistrust, doubt, dissension, or the like, as in friendship or one's life: Their relationship was not without shadows.

13. a dominant or pervasive threat, influence, or atmosphere, esp. one causing gloom, fear, doubt, or the like: They lived under the shadow of war.

14. an inseparable companion: The dog was his shadow.

15. a person who follows another in order to keep watch upon that person, as a spy or detective.

 

–verb (used with object) 16. to overspread with shadow; shade.

17. to cast a gloom over; cloud: The incident shadowed their meeting.

18. to screen or protect from light, heat, etc.; shade.

19. to follow (a person) about secretly, in order to keep watch over his movements.

20. to represent faintly, prophetically, etc. (often fol. by forth).

21. Archaic. to shelter or protect.

22. Archaic. to shade in painting, drawing, etc.

 

–adjective 23. of or pertaining to a shadow cabinet.

24. without official authority: a shadow government.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Origin:

bef. 900; (n.) ME sch(e)adew(e), schadow, shadw(e), OE scead(u)we, obl. case of sceadu shade; (v.) ME; OE sceadwian to protect, cover, overshadow, deriv. of the n.; cf. OS skadowan, skadoian, Goth -skadwjan

 

 

-does Bufford`s brother know what a shadow is yet? or is he still in the shade!:shrug:

[phision]

Have you tried? Ok you can say that there would be 2 shadows, because if you take the light on the right away you WOULD have the shadow from the lamp on the left at the right side of the object. But if the light on the right is there, there is no shadow.

Have you tried to direct light on place where there is shadow? tried it and you will see there is no shadow where you point the light ;)

 

I have not tried this experiment! but if you shone two lasers(of the same frequency) into each other and set up a destructive interference system. then added a shading element to the beams, the beams would not interact with each other as they would be SHADED from one and other! this may or may not be perceivable to us! :shrug:

[Pyrotex]

the thought of shadow would be part of your system! your thoughts wouldn't add mass to another system.:)

I will have you know that MY thoughts are massive, whether they are about shadows or not. :naughty:

 

;)

[phision]

As no posts have been added for quite sometime I think we can conclude shadows do have mass!:thumbs_up:lightning

[Pyrotex]

As no posts have been added for quite sometime I think we can conclude shadows do have mass!:thumbs_up:lightning

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

 

Only 4. Calling a tail a leg does NOT make it a leg.

 

Calling a shadow something that has mass, does NOT make it have mass.

[phision]

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

 

Only 4. Calling a tail a leg does NOT make it a leg.

 

What has your freaky dog got to do with shadows?:eek2:

I know, let's define "shadow" as the poly-dimensional projection of my brother Bufford.

Bufford has mass (quite a bit of it, in fact), therefore a shadow has mass.

The same as your brother nothing!

 

Shadows are an indicator of mass~energy being added to the object that has the shadow.

If you or your brother or your dog have a shadow then you have more mass than before you had a shadow!:rant:

[Boerseun]

Your problem starts with thinking that a shadow actually is "something", whereas a shadow is actually the absence of something, namely photons, or, more accurately, reflected photons.

 

A house on a plot of land weights fifty tons. Asking what a shadow weighs is asking what that house on that plot of land weighed before it was built.

[MichaelCra]

I think what phision was saying is not that the mass of the object blocking the light source is added to the shadow, but that the mass of the Shadow is = to the mass of the Light.

[phision]

Thank you for being able to look beyond preconceived ideas and interpret the concepts conveyed in this thread!