Dark Suckers; Prepare to be mightly confused

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Dark Suckers; Prepare to be mightly confused

Postby rklenseth » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:28 pm

I thought you all would enjoy it. I hope you don't become as confused as I am. :D


The Dark Sucker Theory
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.

So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.

A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.

There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.

Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
User avatar
Solfius
Posts: 3144
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:31 pm

Postby Solfius » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:32 pm

What can I say?
Except for LMAO!!!!

lol, nice one, a real gem u've found here :lol:
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:34 pm

I'm not sure what to believe anymore after reading this. :lol:
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:44 pm

There was an ancient Greek belief that the process of sight started in the eye radiated out a signal and bounced it back.

Which reminds me of a story...

A renaissance astronomy stundent was remark on how unintelligent the Greeks must have been for not being able to figure out correctly whether the sun revloved around the earth of the earth revloved around the sun.

His teacher very wisely made the statement "I supposed they looked up at the sun just as we do and made a theory".

The punchline is the student was commeting on the pre-Copurniean Greeks who belive the earth revolved around the sun. The student was from a time before the Copurniean model of "sun revloves around the earth" were disproven by additional sceince and measurements.

*reverses ploarity on the light meter that came with the camera to conduct some dark meter testing. Problem being is that the dark meter emits light which skews the results. Hmmmm*
User avatar
Darth Tiberius
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Plymouth, England

Postby Darth Tiberius » Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:03 pm

Think of it scientifically. Darkness is the absense of light. Light is caused by kinetic energy between moleculews to such a point where it realeaseds energy in form of light.
All hail his Purple Majesty!!!
User avatar
Solfius
Posts: 3144
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:31 pm

Postby Solfius » Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:15 pm

but isn't that all theory? just it happeneds to be the most accepted theory? This is an alternate theory
User avatar
Darth Tiberius
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Plymouth, England

Postby Darth Tiberius » Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:58 pm

According to what we know. What I said is consodered scientific fact unless it can be proven wrong.
All hail his Purple Majesty!!!
grayjaket
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:16 am
Location: Kentucky

Postby grayjaket » Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:57 am

I like the dark sucker theory better. Maybe somehow we can harness darkness and use it as a resource! Using the vast amount of dark suckers in the world, we would have a lot of dark! A new resource on cantr. Darkness. You can't harvest it without a dark sucker. When you get some dark, you can blind people by putting it in their eyes! Or eat it! mmm...bbq dark yum!
I just can't stop coming back....
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

*trying to think of obvious counter example*
explain light diffraction using this theory.
or think of this example: A light 1 light year away from a sheet of paper is turned off. It takes 1 year for the darkness to return to the paper from the surrounding area. Now repeat with a light 2 light years away. It takes 2 years for the same dark to return to the paper. Why would the time be dependent on the distance of the light source when the dark is just as available and just as close?

Sorry, I just can't bear the defacing of physics.
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:21 am

Come on you guys.

This is a joke nothing more. As well as the history lesson.
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:27 am

kroner wrote:*trying to think of obvious counter example*
explain light diffraction using this theory.
or think of this example: A light 1 light year away from a sheet of paper is turned off. It takes 1 year for the darkness to return to the paper from the surrounding area. Now repeat with a light 2 light years away. It takes 2 years for the same dark to return to the paper. Why would the time be dependent on the distance of the light source when the dark is just as available and just as close?

Sorry, I just can't bear the defacing of physics.


Simple. Because darkness is everywhere. It existed before light and will exist long after. When the dark sucker is turned off the darkness from the edge of the light feild is pushed immideately towards the center of the tunred off dark sucker which caused the last distrubance. Again going faster than the speed of light to reach its destination.
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:32 am

Right, that disproves the theory because in actuality it takes 1 or 2 years respectively for the paper to become dark again. For example when a star burns out, you don't see it do so until years later (and the speed of light is not just theoretic, it's been tests loads of times experimentally)

and I dare someone to try diffraction :twisted:
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:38 am

That becuase the current experiments were flawed since they measured linarlly and didn't take into accout the volume of the dark that is displaced by a dark sucker.
User avatar
new.vogue.nightmare
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:55 am
Location: Right behind you. No, really.
Contact:

Postby new.vogue.nightmare » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:45 am

::takes a tub of concentrated dark and bathes in it::

Now I am....

THE DARK WARRIOR! O_O
Sicofonte wrote:SLURP, SLURP, SLURP...


<Kimidori> esperanto is sooooo sexy^^^^
west
Posts: 4649
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm

Postby west » Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:01 am

All hail the Dork Warrior!
I'm not dead; I'm dormant.

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest