Sorry, "apparently" shadows do not move faster than light.
Since they are... well... defined by light...
I am curious though, as to where you got such a strong notion that shadows can move faster than light...
I am curious though, as to where you got such a strong notion that shadows can move faster than light...
You just linked me to a Stackoverflow post about a theory, which turns out to just be completely wrong, while managing to include a few valid facts.
Was a fun exercise, but please don't get your science this way.
What would really be interesting of the things mentioned in the video linked from the stackoverflow question, would be how a perceiver would see the closing scissors occur.
If you were 12 light years from the handle end of the scissors, and only 2 light years from the tips, if the closing motion took a year to occur, you would see the point move backwards from the tip to the handles, since the light would take longer to reach you to see the handles close than the tips.
This is more of how it should be done in business/politics – not very helpful to say "this is the wrong way to do it" but not propose a better solution. In science, however, falsify things is always useful.
Hypotheses make predictions. Experimentation can test those predictions without providing an alternative explanation for the phenomena you are testing.
For example, if I came up with a theory of gravity that implied everything should fall towards the earth at the same speed, all you need to do to falsify my theory is show that this is not the case. You do not need to know that wind resistance is the confounding variable to know that the theory which suggests everything should fall at the same speed is wrong.
I understand some concepts are so ingrained, that they are perceived as theories but as reality itself (Newtonian physics before the end of XIX century) but physics is not constrained by our intuition (what we are familiar with).
For example, imagine we live in a simulation, how does it affect your example?
You now seem to be arguing that all science must be done by proving things from first principles, which is of course absurd.
Just look at various explanations for "dark matter" phenomena
With regard to dark matter: yes there are many competing / mutually exclusive theories surrounding it, but that does not then mean in order to invalidate one of those theories you need to have picked a different one that you like better.
If I would try to find and explain alternative hypotheses for your "human intuition/everyday experience " examples they would sound contrived this invalidating themselves. Imagine trying to explain quantum theory/general relativity to a Victorian and their counter-examples all use objects from their life.