Dark Suckers; Prepare to be mightly confused

[JW]

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.

Ahh, no... Your scientific explanation is flawed. "Light" is the term given, to state that our eyes can percieve(see) a small spectrum of the Electro-Magnectic Radiation. Also, light is NOT created from molecule interaction. Current theory states that "Light" is made up of photons, an atomic particle, created on the atomic level through the change of energy states.

If your room was filled with other types of Electro-Magnectic Radiation, but not "Light", you will percieve darkness. If your room does not contain any Electro-Magnetic Radiotion at all, of course, total complete darkness.
However, one part is true, darkness is the absence of, "Light".

Sorry if I ruined the fun behind the Dark Sucker Theory.

PS: From reading all posts regarded to this thread, I will assume that none of you lot have done physics.

[Thomas Pickert]

If I got you right, I have to assume, that you have only done a very limited amount of physics.

Light is sometimes considered in terms of a particle model, sometimes it's considered as a wave.

Which model is being used depends on the experiment. I don't see any argument, why the dark sucker model shouldn't be applicable to some kind of experiment.

[rklenseth]

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.

Believe it or not, David, there are people who believe in the theory. To me and you it's a joke but to some it is the real thing. Go to Yahoo! and put "Dark Sucker Theory" into the search engine. There will be some joke sites but there are a whole lot more serious sites on the subject.

The Dark Sucker Theory does explain the reason for the dark spot you can see on a light bulb if you look close enough.

And remember, just because society believes in one theory doesn't mean that that theory is the only correct one. At one time there was those that believed the universe revolved around the Earth and then there were people who believed the universe revolved around the Sun and now it is common theory that none of those are true but the universe revolves around a central point somewhere in the universe. Someday that theory might be proven false and soemthing else thought up. So, just because the current theory about light is the accepted theory doesn't at all prove the Dark Sucker Theory wrong though the two may contradict each other.

So in other words, we humans really have no clue at all how the world or universe works and we never will either.

[Guest]

If I got you right, I have to assume, that you have only done a very limited amount of physics.

Light is sometimes considered in terms of a particle model, sometimes it's considered as a wave.

Which model is being used depends on the experiment. I don't see any argument, why the dark sucker model shouldn't be applicable to some kind of experiment.

Did I say the Dark Sucker Theory is not valid? I only said, "sorry to spoil the fun", not to be against it nor to righteously ridicule it as a nonsense. I apologise if I did, but I did find that Dark Sucker Theory very good to read. Also, because I didn't fully explain the properties of light, didn't mean I have done a very limited amount of physics... You are entitled to your opinion, I don't mind.

Now for mine... You stated, "Light is sometimes considered in terms of a particle model, sometimes it's considered as a wave." WELL, that clearly states you are the ONE who did a very limited amount of physics. If you did an updated, "Light" is now considered a particle that travels in a wave form. Why? Simply because, "Light" is in the Electro-Magnectic Spectrum Radiation that is subject to frequency and amplitude, and that being a particle (F = MA), effects the way how photovataic cells work. "Light" is no longer split between the two, but the combination of the two. It's in your High-school physics book, topic, "particle-wave" or something similar titled theory, if you did do High-school physics...

Would you like to further challenge me on this topic, Thomas?

Cheers.

[JW]

One more thing, I did not intend to insult anyone's intelligence in this matter. If I did, I apologise again.

Cheers.

[Meh]

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.

Ahh, no... Your scientific explanation is flawed. "Light" is the term given, to state that our eyes can percieve(see) a small spectrum of the Electro-Magnectic Radiation. Also, light is NOT created from molecule interaction. Current theory states that "Light" is made up of photons, an atomic particle, created on the atomic level through the change of energy states.

If your room was filled with other types of Electro-Magnectic Radiation, but not "Light", you will percieve darkness. If your room does not contain any Electro-Magnetic Radiotion at all, of course, total complete darkness.
However, one part is true, darkness is the absence of, "Light".

Sorry if I ruined the fun behind the Dark Sucker Theory.

PS: From reading all posts regarded to this thread, I will assume that none of you lot have done physics.

photons are a subatomic partical but I'm sure you just didn't want to get into all that...

But seriouslly light acts as a wave and a particle at the same time.
Light is an enigma in intself.
I read once theory one time where they therozied that light was two waves at "right angles" to each other. Where they intersect light is a particle where they seprate light is a wave.

As far as physics I do it daily. Everyday converting kientic energy in electiric signals that are used to annoy people. Actually the keyboard does most of the work I just punch the keys.

[JW]

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.

Ahh, no... Your scientific explanation is flawed. "Light" is the term given, to state that our eyes can percieve(see) a small spectrum of the Electro-Magnectic Radiation. Also, light is NOT created from molecule interaction. Current theory states that "Light" is made up of photons, an atomic particle, created on the atomic level through the change of energy states.

If your room was filled with other types of Electro-Magnectic Radiation, but not "Light", you will percieve darkness. If your room does not contain any Electro-Magnetic Radiotion at all, of course, total complete darkness.
However, one part is true, darkness is the absence of, "Light".

Sorry if I ruined the fun behind the Dark Sucker Theory.

PS: From reading all posts regarded to this thread, I will assume that none of you lot have done physics.

photons are a subatomic partical but I'm sure you just didn't want to get into all that...

But seriouslly light acts as a wave and a particle at the same time.
Light is an enigma in intself.
I read once theory one time where they therozied that light was two waves at "right angles" to each other. Where they intersect light is a particle where they seprate light is a wave.

As far as physics I do it daily. Everyday converting kientic energy in electiric signals that are used to annoy people. Actually the keyboard does most of the work I just punch the keys.

That theory in regards that light was two waves at "right angles", it is applicable. Do you know of or remember the Polaroid experiment? One polaroid will allow light through, but if place two together at the right angles, light will be totally blocked. It's also noted in the high-school physics books if you wish to check it out.

Cheers.

[Thomas Pickert]

One more thing, I did not intend to insult anyone's intelligence in this matter. If I did, I apologise again.

Cheers.

Thanks. I see, you understood what I was getting at, even without me challenging you any further.

[JW]

One more thing, I did not intend to insult anyone's intelligence in this matter. If I did, I apologise again.

Cheers.

Thanks. I see, you understood what I was getting at, even without me challenging you any further.

Silly me for causing the mis-interpretations. I should have added more smileys.

[rklenseth]

As I would like to point out again, everything that is being explained on the board are theories. Some have different theories than others. It doesn't mean either of them are wrong nor does it mean either of them are right. Perhaps, Thomas was taught a different theory than others or accepts a different theory than others. Just as the same can be said of JW.

Nothing wrong in believing a theory that society doesn't. For example I believe Atlantis existed (though other civilizations might have known as a different name or Atlantis itself might know itself as a different name; Atlantis was the name given by the Greeks and the Egyptians) as well as I believe humans have been around for at least a couple hundred thousand years than the 40,000 that we give ourselves credit for. I also do not believe humans evolved from apes in form or fashion though I do believe we might have evolved from a earlier form of humans which weren't that much different than us. But even though I believe in all of that doesn't mean that it is true to someone else. So the whole point of that was that I know there are other people that would pounce all over me and tell me why I'm wrong were I would counter with all the evidence that I know. But since there is no conclusive evidence that does not leave any question or doubt, both would still be theories in the end. I think the only way at this point, to prove or disprove what I have said above is to actually go back in time and see for oneself. Which may or may not be possible (though I personally believe may be possible).

[JW]

<i>"I also do not believe humans evolved from apes in form or fashion though I do believe we might have evolved from a earlier form of humans which weren't that much different than us."</i>


Don't mind me if I ask, why you say that? I would like to hear an opinion from someone who does not believe in the current human evolution theory. Oh yeah, I got nothing against or whatsoever... I keep an open mind and prefer to hear both sides of the story.

Cheers.

[Meh]

That theory in regards that light was two waves at "right angles", it is applicable. Do you know of or remember the Polaroid experiment? One polaroid will allow light through, but if place two together at the right angles, light will be totally blocked. It's also noted in the high-school physics books if you wish to check it out.

Cheers.

Then I am showing my age. It was new long after I left college.
We had a whole chapter on the marvels of the new fire thing in high school.

[Meh]

<i>"I also do not believe humans evolved from apes in form or fashion though I do believe we might have evolved from a earlier form of humans which weren't that much different than us."</i>


Don't mind me if I ask, why you say that? I would like to hear an opinion from someone who does not believe in the current human evolution theory. Oh yeah, I got nothing against or whatsoever... I keep an open mind and prefer to hear both sides of the story.

Cheers.

We didn't evolve from apes but share a common ancestry before that.
We were just one of the "intellegent" creature to evlove. The neoandarthals {sp?} were "intellegent" but only enough to survive. We evolved to a level of intellegients more than what we need to survive. We were design to outthink other "intellegent" beings. And though the course of time drove anything that challaged us to extinction. And now that there is nothing else left to fight we fight each other.

[rklenseth]

<i>"I also do not believe humans evolved from apes in form or fashion though I do believe we might have evolved from a earlier form of humans which weren't that much different than us."</i>


Don't mind me if I ask, why you say that? I would like to hear an opinion from someone who does not believe in the current human evolution theory. Oh yeah, I got nothing against or whatsoever... I keep an open mind and prefer to hear both sides of the story.

Cheers.

It's not really the current theory anymore. The ape theory was thrown out the window in the early 90's when it was figured out that all apes have a different DNA code from humans and that remains found that looked ape like were found to have ape DNA or similiar. Plus the recent findings of the fossil of the man that looks very human like and has most of the modern skeleton structure unlike the fossil of that woman of those found in Africa that resembled more ape than human. The other thing is that the human looking remains predate the ape looking remains by a couple thousand years give or take the margin of error that could goe both ways. Plus the DNA they found from the woman apelike remains was that of ape DNA and not human. The results from the humanlike remains have not have had their test results released yet as the discover is fairly new.

[Guest]

I stand corrected in regards to the human evolution theory.

Thanks.