For those that would like to read more, here is a site that has a little bit more about the Dark Sucker Theory.
http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html
I would like to hear some arguments for and against the Dark Sucker Theory. I have heard arguments against but what about soem for?
Dark Suckers; Prepare to be mightly confused
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department
-
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am
- Solfius
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:31 pm
except light is energy, as can be shown buy light bulbs producing light when a current is passed through them.
Also, light bulbs radiate heat, whereas if they were sucking matter in then they would not radiate heat, as they would be sucking things in.
Sorry, i can't think of anything for.
ALthough, you could argue dark suckers give of heat due to the energy and friction involved in their sucking.
Also, light bulbs radiate heat, whereas if they were sucking matter in then they would not radiate heat, as they would be sucking things in.
Sorry, i can't think of anything for.
ALthough, you could argue dark suckers give of heat due to the energy and friction involved in their sucking.
- Darth Tiberius
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:06 am
- Location: Plymouth, England
- kroner
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
- Location: new jersey...
People often say that the theories we believe in now may not be correct, just as older theories, such as the geocentric view were proven wrong in the past, BUT there is a major difference. The theories that make up physics now have been found using scientific method, which was not so before the Renaissance. When theories we have are proven wrong it is usually only in slight ways. For instance, relativity disproved Newtonian physics, but it didn't invalidate the whole thing. Relativity just showed Newtonian physics to be an approximation at relatively low speeds, in other words, a special case, but still useful and for the most part true. That's the nature of most scientific discoveries now a days. They usually only modify the things that have come before. The chance that our entire understanding of a topic will be completely changed by a discovery is incredibly unlikely. In the case of the dark sucker theory, it may seem plausible in a very superficial way, but all of modern physics including relativity and quantum mechanics are based on light as electromagnetic waves that also have particle properties, and as a form of energy. The dark sucker theory doesn't explain sight, color, electromagnetic radiation, the wave and particle properties of light (especially diffraction), conservation of energy, energy quanta as well as just about everything else in modern physics. Most of this has been proven experimentally so it's much more than just a theory.
The little example I gave before is a simple thought experiment that clearly contradicts the dark sucker theory.
And that's my arguement against the dark sucker theory
(i love physics )
The little example I gave before is a simple thought experiment that clearly contradicts the dark sucker theory.
And that's my arguement against the dark sucker theory
(i love physics )
-
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:16 am
- Location: Kentucky
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
- Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse
- kroner
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
- Location: new jersey...
Of course you can't satifisfactorially prove anything, including the existance of the universe as you know it, but each time things follow the laws we suppose they should, it increases the probability that things are the way we think they are. For example, when a giant talking mongoose doesn't enter your room as the whole place turns inside out, it reinforces the assumptions you make about how things work. The laws of physics are laws that we have never seen broken so the probability of them being right is fairly high. Where the laws are broken we know that we have to change our explanations to ones more probable. So by the fact that many people have seen all these laws being followed many times and no one has credibly seen them broken, I can assume fairly surely that they are true. That is science. Relying on a theory that only fits some of the observed phenomena when a more plausible one exists is not.
- thingnumber2
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:31 am
- Location: TN
- Contact:
- new.vogue.nightmare
- Posts: 1607
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:55 am
- Location: Right behind you. No, really.
- Contact:
Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest