Cantr II Discussion Forum

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


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.

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

lol, nice one, a real gem u've found here

I'm not sure what to believe anymore after reading this.

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*

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.

but isn't that all theory? just it happeneds to be the most accepted theory? This is an alternate theory

According to what we know. What I said is consodered scientific fact unless it can be proven wrong.

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!

*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.

Come on you guys.

This is a joke nothing more. As well as the history lesson.

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.

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

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.

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

Now I am....

THE DARK WARRIOR! O_O

All hail the Dork Warrior!