Logic vs. Logos

In this post, I will defend my understanding of light, mass and energy and Andreas will defend the consensus science view of the same. You should be able, after reading the whole debate, know who has the more reasonable view of these phenomena.

(I call all light visible. If light isn’t visible, isn’t darkness conditioned? The nature of light, from how I think about it, is that which shines in the darkness and illuminates what was formerly hidden. Does infrared illuminate things shrouded in darkness? I don’t conflate electromagnetic waves with light. Electromagnetic waves are information and light is what illuminates the information. Light can manifest if a surface comes in contact with a light source, but it isn’t the wave itself. It’s what happens when a surface’s photon gets switched on by wave contact)

Andreas Johnson: "No. Darkness is conditional. If we could see all energies of light, there would be very little darkness in the world. No, light does not illuminate electromagnetic waves. Light is electromagnetic waves, bundled into packets of energy called photons.

(She thinks a wave could still be a wave after being bundled up. Waves always connect the departure location to the arrival location)

Andreas Johnson: "These energy-bundles slam into our eyes, wiggle some ions in our rods & cones and generate an electric signal that our brain can interpret."

(She thinks a chargeless photon can be the provider of an electric signal. Electricity is an electron charge property. Energies of light is like saying energies of energy. If light is massless (0%), it must necessarily be 100% energy)

Andreas Johnson: "I was implying levels of energy, but you’re right that’s my mistake. Also, everything we can observe in the physical universe is 100% energy. Mass is energy too."

(Mass is the very opposite of energy. That’s like claiming: “light is darkness, too”; energy: light, the illuminator of mass objects; mass : objects illuminated by light)

Andreas Johnson: "No; mass is not the opposite of energy. Einstein was probably most famous for his equation E=mc^2. That literally equates mass and energy."

(This is where I explain the hidden meaning of e=mc^2)
There is no unit for energy so energy could never be matched with mass units. An equation has to have compatible units on either side of the equal sign. Energy is always 0. How do we get the other side to be 0? We make 'c' (speed of light) 0 as well. This would be correct since time stops at the speed of light. So, let's see the equation with the 0s: 0 = m x 0^2 . Any value you put for m, when multiplied with 0 squared will come out as 0. So we get 0 = 0 which confirms Einstein's equation to be correct!

Andreas Johnson: "We're told that a photon travels through space at a finite speed having measured periods of time between the place it left and the place it arrives. That qualifies it as OBJECT."

(We're told that in order for an object to reach the speed of light, it must acquire infinite mass. That's a problem. Infinite mass can't travel finite speeds causing measurements of time between the location it leaves and the location it arrives at. Energy is at the constant. There is no mass, space, time or velocity there. For something to be in spacetime there must be space, time, mass and velocity. Energy is the perceiver and mass is the perceived. Spacetime is perceptual in nature only. The constant is where objective reality is found. Energy enters spacetime but must do so at full velocity, the reason being that it has no rest mass. This velocity creates inertia mass which slows it down from infinite velocity to a finite velocity giving it the requirement needed to travel a distance and cause a time measurement. Saying that everything is energy is the same thing as saying everything is mind. Mind is where thoughts appear. If we see reality as a wave, we need both a medium and a disturbance in that medium. Seeing reality as a movie, we'd need a screen and the movie to project on to that screen. To see reality correctly, we see the need for both the objects and what illuminates those objects (light). If it can't be illuminated by light, it isn't a three dimensional (spacetime) object)

Andreas Johnson: "Ok let’s start with your first paragraph. Photons do travel through space at a finite speed. The speed of light. We can know exactly how far a photon has traveled and for how long. The next part is really bizzare: no, only massive objects (particles or systems that have measurable mass) need infinite mass to reach the speed of light; photons have no mass, so it’s not a problem."

(She says, "The next part is really bizzare" because she doesn't have the understanding. If mass is infinite, it has no definitions that would cause limitation. If mass is 0 (100% energy), it has no definitions that would cause limitation; in other words, you won't be able to discern a difference between infinite mass and the massless photon)

Andreas Johnson: "Using Einstein’s equations for mass dilation, this is totally fine: plug in zero for the rest mass, and it travels the speed of light no problem. In fact, its the reason it can interact gravitationally: even though it has no rest mass, it responds to gravity, because it has gravitational mass. That depends on its energy"

(I wonder if she thinks mass can be non-gravitational. If not, why did she need to use the unnecessary adjective?)

Andreas Johnson: "Next paragraph. “Energy is at the constant”? What does this mean? Velocity cannot be constant, unless it is the speed of light."

(She forgot that she agreed light was energy)

Andreas Johnson: "That’s essentially because it is an infinite speed: you can’t travel at an infinite speed. Light does not perceive spacetime"

(If I'm a perceiver, and there is only one absolute location, the constant, then I, as perceiver must be light. If I'm not just a perception someone else is having, then I absolutely exist. If I absolutely exist, I must exist at an absolute location. There's only one and it's the constant. As light, I do have the ability to perceive my spacetime environment)

Andreas Johnson: “The constant is where objective reality is found.” Once again, I disagree, quite strongly. There is no constant in observation. Observation is relative"

(She doesn't notice that I never brought up observation)

Andreas Johnson: "Only in the same inertial frame of reference can two observers 100% agree on any physical observation. “Energy enters spacetime, but must do so at full velocity.” When was energy ever outside of spacetime?"

(She forgot that she agreed light was energy and that at the speed of light, distance is 0 (no distance) and time is 0 (no time). That puts energy outside of space and time)

Andreas Johnson: "How on Earth is saying everything is energy the same as saying everything is mind?"

(How can mind think up mind? Mind thinks up thoughts, not mind. This makes a mind-thought equivalency a no-go. So that isn't any different than saying energy causes energy, which is what's said if mass is energy)

Andreas Johnson: "I don’t see the need for both objects and light. If it can’t be illuminated, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in spacetime."

(Objects are in an information format that tells our brain what it looks like. Our brain is built to function as an information-to-visual perception converter. Not having light to allow for visual perception would make all that design and information construction a big waste of time)

Andreas Johnson: "Explain to me how matter can be converted into light, but still not exist as energy."

(I never made a claim that mass particles can change into light. Mass particles are waveform information, not particles (before the brain does anything with the information)

Andreas Johnson: "What is the acceleration rate of a photon? All things that travel have acceleration rates.
Its rate of acceleration is always zero."

(If two claims contradict, a false claim was made. Her first claim: "All things that travel have acceleration rates." She also claims that a photon is a thing that travels. Then she claims that a thing that travels has a zero acceleration rate; no acceleration rate)

Andreas Johnson: "When we see gravity bending the path of a photon"

(A path of a photon? That path would be space. How do you bend nothing? Space is what allows objects to have distance between them. That's all. A distance between objects isn't a "something" that can be bent by some force)

Andreas Johnson: "It’s not accelerating the photon: it’s warping spacetime"

(Something is warping a non-existent object called spacetime? When I say 'space' I mean the nothing that allows somethings to have distance between them. When I say 'time' I say 'a stack of non-motion events in a linear series that can be perceived as object motion by an observer; object motion always necessitates a quantity of time)

Andreas Johnson: "such that the photon appears to change direction"

(A photon has never been observed. Even if it was an object big enough to see, how are you going to see it when it's traveling the speed of light? Somehow, she's of the impression that people have witnessed photons appearing to change direction)

Really? If it was always in motion, it was never created (existence before travel). Light existed before the Big Bang?

Andreas Johnson: "It wasn’t always in motion, because it didn’t always exist."

(She turns her belief into a underserved scientific claim. Nobody has determined that light didn't always exist except in the form of opinion)

Andreas Johnson: "When light is produced, it doesn’t start out at rest"

(My guess is she wouldn't accept the claim that I can build things that are at a speed then didn't first have to get to from a rest position. I'm not sure what it is that would allow her to accept such absurdity)

Andreas Johnson: "When it is absorbed, it doesn’t slow down to interact with a particle"

(Contradiction: absorbtion is an interaction between that which is absorbing something and the something that is being absorbed. If there is no interaction, there is no absorbtion)

Andreas Johnson: "It doesn’t exist, then it does and it moves at the speed of light"

(Kind of like pulling a rabbit that wasn't in the hat, out of the hat. We have a name for that: magic (not science)

Andreas Johnson: "A proton has a radius"

(How? Before it reaches our senses, it's in the information (waveform) state)

Andreas Johnson: "When it was produced..."

(Another belief, not science. There isn't any way for information to produce little baby balls of light that travel really, really fast and get pulled by an invisible force from a big object with no discernible mechanism for generating a pulling force)

Andreas Johnson: "how quickly did it expand to that size? It didn’t. It’s part of its existence"

(If something has existence in a spacetime reality, it has a location that can be identified. If light has no way to rest, it has no way to be located which makes it a non-existent property)

Andreas Johnson: "Also, I personally do believe there were photons before the big bang."

(So she believes Stephen Hawking was dead wrong about the Big Bang event being the first to introduce spacetime. She claims light travels distances of space and traveling always requires the time to do it. That would mean Stephen got mistakenly praised as a genius)

Something can’t come into existence already in high velocity, correct? You’re saying a newly existing automobile can come as one traveling at 60mph?

Andreas Johnson: "I understand that’s confusing, but that’s exactly what I’m saying."

(Why is she so sure she's right if she recognizes it as a confusing idea (one that doesn't make any sense)?

Andreas Johnson: "It comes into existence with that momentum."

(Another rabbit out of the hat moment)

Andreas Johnson: "Photons do not accelerate, they either exist moving at the speed of light or they don’t. It’s really weird"

(It's only really weird because you're really wrong)

You have to give an explanation to where the momentum came from. Objects in space free fall but light isn’t falling. What is causing the light-speed?

Andreas Johnson: "The momentum is from whatever particle generated the light"

(Unsupported claims are invalid)

Andreas Johnson: "In most cases, this is an electron relaxing into a lower-energy atomic orbital"

(Again, electrons are in a information (waveform). They don't do anything until a conversion to the particle state happens, and even then, Particles don't move. They create non-motion events by being placed in a brain-produced build according to their location definitions. Then these non-motion events are put in a serial sequence like frames in a film strip)

Particles don’t have any generating abilities. How did you think this was accomplished? Give me the reason the massless (immaterial) needs to be going 670,616,629 mph.

Andreas Johnson: "I don’t know why light must travel the speed of light. I’m not sure anyone does"

(That would be an excellent reason to question the theory you support)

Andreas Johnson: "Photons were produced, and it costs energy to produce them”.

So you think photons are mass? If they’re massless, they’re energy and you’re stuck saying energy was produced (created). You think that is scientifically sound, to say “it cost energy to produce energy?” You have information in a waveform and you think this waveform spent energy producing a particle that has no definitions? How does it produce an immaterial object (only objects can travel distances in space)?