What's the speed of dark?

Originally posted by MrDead
Cold is the opposite of hot... But heat is a temperature above absolute zero, so even 3 kelvins has heat, 0 kelvins has no heat. Dark is the opposite of light. There's nothing below no light.
An orange is tasty, what do no oranges taste like? Nothing.
Dark has no speed or mechanics.

The electrons in a particle get excited, they jump up to specific energy levels, and when they drop back down, they release energy as a photon (light). The lowest state is called the ground electron state, and can only absorb energy. They don't jump below the GES to produce 'dark'.

Dark is a nonexistence, an absence, nothing.

not disagreeing. agreeing, actually(read my first post in this thread), but curious. electrons(which i don't believe in except as a wave sample) which are absorbing this energy, do they then leave this GES? energy can't go to nowhere, so as soon as the 'electron' absorbs energy it is no longer in this ground state.
see! wave sample! the zeropoint is the most interesting idea to me, because it is truly zero, and yet, this is where everything comes from. from nothing. something from nothing. waves.

The electrons in the GES still have energy (kinetic etc) but to RELEASE photons (packets of energy, the difference between the energy level and that jumped down from) they need to be excited. The energy levels are quantized and specific.
Energy is constant - cannot be created or destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics). Also electrons as shown by deBroglie have wave particle duality. It is convenient to use whichever model of the electron is suitable for the problem, because both models exist. Electrons orbit the atomic nucleus in orbitals, it can also be shown that an electron can exist in multiple places along that orbital, showing that it is a wave. In chemical equations its convenient to use an electron as a particle (e-).

Originally posted by MrDead
The electrons in the GES still have energy (kinetic etc) but to RELEASE photons (packets of energy, the difference between the energy level and that jumped down from) they need to be excited. The energy levels are quantized and specific.
Energy is constant - cannot be created or destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics). Also electrons as shown by deBroglie have wave particle duality. It is convenient to use whichever model of the electron is suitable for the problem, because both models exist. Electrons orbit the atomic nucleus in orbitals, it can also be shown that an electron can exist in multiple places along that orbital, showing that it is a wave. In chemical equations its convenient to use an electron as a particle (e-).

i think if you were to trace the path of a 'proton' and and 'electron' through 'time', what you would have is a helical braid of wave energy.
what is indicated to me in your post is that light is a higher excitement of electricity(although i believe that light is an amalgum of electricity waves perpindicular to gravity waves, don't ask why, i don't know!).
i'm working on my own grand unification theory using a ball of string, a newt and a match. high science.

Originally posted by Satyr
It must be faster than light, right? It was there before light ever started to travel. Nothing can break the speed of light? Limited imagination, IMO.

What a stupid question !

E=M^T where EMT are Energy, Matter, Time (speed)

If E tend to infinite, then M^T tend to infinite
if E tend to zero, the M^T tend to zero

If E/M=0 (Emptyness, darkness) then T, time=ZERO...

Darkness = no energy = no movement...


[Edited on 12-11-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS

What a stupid question !

there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
people who think science knows everything have WAY too much FAITH.

I think we've established that the speed of stupidity is about 3 posts per hour.

Honestly. I give up.

Originally posted by Zzub
I think we've established that the speed of stupidity is about 3 posts per hour.

Honestly. I give up.

because you posted something does not mean it is 'established', despite your impressive cranium.
i can post stupidty at a way higher rate than 3 an hour.

Billybob, I was not referring to you, I should have pointed that out, sorry.

Originally posted by Zzub
I think we've established that the speed of stupidity is about 3 posts per hour.

We need a new smilie for...

Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off so hard I # my pants!


Awesome Zzub.
(Standing ovation)

*silly grin*

Thank you very much!

/bows

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
What a stupid question !

E=M^T where EMT are Energy, Matter, Time (speed)

If E tend to infinite, then M^T tend to infinite
if E tend to zero, the M^T tend to zero

If E/M=0 (Emptyness, darkness) then T, time=ZERO...

Darkness = no energy = no movement...

Bull#! Prove that darkness = no energy! Energy is everywhere. There is no place energy doesn't exist! Science tends to think that darkness is anti-matter. (not sure I can agree) How the hell does that fit into your equation? Darkness is not energy, matter, or time. (according to modern theory) As I've already said, they don't really know what it is. Obviously, you're quite content to simplify things for your own comfort.

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by Satyr]

Originally posted by billybob
light is a wave.

Actually, it was just a month or two ago that someone posted an link to an article that gave some interesting results to an experiment;
The scientists split a beam of light. Each of the two subsequent lights were tested to see if they would act as a wave or a particle (photon). Each portion reacted in different ways--One acted as a wave, the other as a photonic particle stream.

So light is not *always* a wave...


Here's a related question that's had me wondering for a while; If water *reflects* light, then can anyone explain why a wet towel looks darker than a dry one?

Originally posted by Zzub
I think we've established that the speed of stupidity is about 3 posts per hour.

Outside of ATS though, in the mainstream population, the speed of stupidity is infinity-minus-one...

Light acts as both waves and particles simultaneously. It is only when we observe it do we percieve particles or waves. Whichever we are testing for will be what guides the result.

Just because it is dark, does not mean there is no light there. Darkness as we see it is when there are no photons of wavelength .35� to .9� absorbing on our retinas. That doesn't mean there is no light there; there can be gamma rays or x rays or microwaves, etc. These are all forms of light that are still travelling through space even though we see it as dark.

I am going to say this one more time. Dark does not have speed, it does not move. Dark does not follow light, it does not move out of the way when light comes by. Dark is what we perceive when no photons from the visible spectrum are hitting our eyes.

There are much more interesting topics of discussion than this one. And no, discussing whether or not the world is flat is not one of them.

In E=M^T T is time and not neccesarely speed, thats why dark is not nothing, its the adsence of photons like i claimed before..just wanna join in the stupid corner again

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
Just because it is dark, does not mean there is no light there. Darkness as we see it is when there are no photons of wavelength .35� to .9� absorbing on our retinas. That doesn't mean there is no light there; there can be gamma rays or x rays or microwaves, etc. These are all forms of light that are still travelling through space even though we see it as dark.

I am going to say this one more time. Dark does not have speed, it does not move. Dark does not follow light, it does not move out of the way when light comes by. Dark is what we perceive when no photons from the visible spectrum are hitting our eyes.

There are much more interesting topics of discussion than this one. And no, discussing whether or not the world is flat is not one of them.

nice post. except for the bit about this not being a good thread. i could just smell the gray matter ot ATS denizens burnin'.
the world FLAT, ha! it's hollow with two holes at either end and a central sun. everybody knows that.
so, what if it's all just light. all the wavelengths and angles we can't see are always passing through or interacting with us. bending around our mass. reflecting and refracting off our skin. being absorbed as heat by our bodies. add eleven or more dimensions and yahoo, we're goldfish in a hyperbowl. does a goldfish know irony?

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
Just because it is dark, does not mean there is no light there. Darkness as we see it is when there are no photons of wavelength .35� to .9� absorbing on our retinas. That doesn't mean there is no light there; there can be gamma rays or x rays or microwaves, etc. These are all forms of light that are still travelling through space even though we see it as dark.

This is true, but I still don't see any evidence that dark doesn't move. There are many things we don't see. You should know by now, just because we can't see, doesn't mean it's not possible. You do sound much like a "world is flat" supporter. This is not a bad thread, IMO. A few possible theories have been thrown around, so far. As I've already said (and I'll say it once more)...if you're correct, then dark (or anti-matter) is once again a conduit. There's no reason to believe you're correct yet, though. That's just your opinion. Maybe "dark" isn't a good term for whatever else you'd call it if you didn't call it dark, eh?

BTW, a better question would have been "what is dark?", but I thought why not throw something out there that can't be disproven and let people call me stupid? Some people actually like to think.

[Edited on 11-13-2003 by Satyr]

Has anyone here ever watched a film called 'What the bleep'? It's mainly about quantum theory, and from what I recall (it's been a while since I watched it) they were saying light is both waves and particals, it behaves differently depending on the 'observer'. The famous double slit experiment has raised more questions than it answered imo.

But what I'm trying to say is if light is a partical then it is restricted to it's limit of whatever light speed is but surely if it's a wave then this can speed up or slow down, even stop......much like the ripple in a pond, but in order to be a wave it needs a medium to travel through, I think Einstien was toying with the idea that in space this medium was called the euthra or somthing like that, but he couldn't prove that it existed. it's been a while since I read about it, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This Youtube link is the experiment from the movie:




This thread is very interesting stuff and a subject close to my heart, just wish I was smart enough to get a phd in it and study it profesionaly, but alas, I'm stoopid! lol!

I think Einstien was toying with the idea that in space this medium was called the euthra or somthing like that, but he couldn't prove that it existed. it's been a while since I read about it, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You mean ether?
I think Einstein only investigated it after Rudolf Steiner submitted his theory about ether, orgone etc. to him.
The idea of "ether", however, is much older than that. And while the "substance" itself has been disproved - or not-proved - the notion itself is spot-on, if you ask me...

just wish I was smart enough to get a phd in it and study it profesionaly

Ahem... I think it works in reverse: first, you study it, then you get the PhD...





[edit on 11-1-2008 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by crayon
Isn't 'dark' the absence of light? Just like 'cold' is the absence of heat?

[Edited on 11/10/03 by crayon]

or is heat the absence of cold?
Seems like there is something to darkness other than an absence of light.
(sure that is one aspect, but more to it than what we 'think')

Peace

dAlen