Cantr II Discussion Forum

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?

Someone on another site that i was reading through made a really good point when arguing for the Dark Sucker Theory. He said 'if dark is the absence for light as theory would suggest, couldn't there be a theory that suggests light is the absence of dark?' I think that makes a really good point.

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.

Uh oh. Another scientific argue...... I mean debate.

I won't get into it. The area of photons and light is all just too long to say it in the amount if time and space I have.

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 )

*starts munching on his dark sandwich* I've been skimming through these arguments and I've come to the conclusion that I have no idea what any of you are talking about and I don't feel like trying to figure it out! Woohoo!

the fact that quantium mechnics is partially understood leaves plenty room in the world for magic.

effect preceeds cause etc.

sceince has proven that proven that our preception of reality has not more substance than a dream

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.

* cowers before a giant mongoose as the room turns inside out* Well...

*blinkkitTWITCHflailexplode*