# Whats the speed of dark ?



## Geedee (Mar 11, 2010)

What is the speed of dark ?. Is it affected by vacuum...total or partial.... gravity, atmospheric density.

We know there is a 'speed of light' and its measurable, but is the speed of dark faster ?. When a light source is switched off, the dark is there straight away !

Over to you


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2010)

In laymans terms, the speed of darkness is faster than the warp engines of the USS Enterprise, so I'd say its pretty damn frickin fast...


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 11, 2010)

There is a rather amusing comedy sketch by the late Peter Cook with that idea in it...


----------



## Njaco (Mar 11, 2010)

Geedee said:


> What is the speed of dark ?. Is it affected by vacuum...total or partial.... gravity, atmospheric density.
> 
> Over to you



Depends on how fast the mugger is swinging the bat.

fade to black.........


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 11, 2010)

The speed of dark is faster as it is not affected by gravity


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 11, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> The speed of dark is faster as it is not affected by gravity


Does that not imply
that it has no mass? No mass, no scalar value, no means of carrying energy ergo no 'speed of dark'


----------



## Geedee (Mar 11, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> The speed of dark is faster as it is not affected by gravity



But we all know that light is affected by gravity....black holes ?....so it should also affect the dark. Gravity has a known velocity as confirmed by NASA (check out the NASA website for further details) so that would imply that it should also affect the dark. 

Newton stated in one of his famous laws that for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action. So....would a balck hole slow down the dark or would it also speed it up ?

Personally I reckon that dark is faster cos if you switch the light off in a room and it goes dark, its instant. Its not like...'oh, its getting a bit darker...and darker still...ok, now its dark !', its instantaneous, so therefore the dark has to be faster to get where the light was the exact instant its no longer there.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 11, 2010)

Geedee said:


> But we all know that light is affected by gravity....black holes ?....so it should also affect the dark. Gravity has a known velocity as confirmed by NASA (check out the NASA website for further details) so that would imply that it should also affect the dark.
> 
> Newton stated in one of his famous laws that for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action. So....would a balck hole slow down the dark or would it also speed it up ?
> 
> Personally I reckon that dark is faster cos if you switch the light off in a room and it goes dark, its instant. Its not like...'oh, its getting a bit darker...and darker still...ok, now its dark !', its instantaneous, so therefore the dark has to be faster to get where the light was the exact instant its no longer there.


The speed of dark is zero
Dark cannot move or travel, it is only the absence of light. If gravity cannot influence it, it can have no mass and if it has no mass it can retain no energy. Luminance is the accession of light, at light speed. It does not therefore follow that darkness is the accession of dark, it is merely the recession of light. Any change in luminance is only relative to the speed of light.

Gravity by the way, is a form of acceleration, not velocity - 9.8m/s/s

For my next question: what is the speed of no electricity in a conductor?


----------



## Geedee (Mar 11, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The speed of dark is zero
> If gravity cannot influence it, it can have no mass and if it has no mass it can retain no energy.
> Gravity by the way, is a form of acceleration, not velocity - 9.8m/s/s



Gravity travels at the speed of light. Dr. Eric Christian (October 2001).

Light cannot move or travel either....if I momentarily switch a torch on and off, I dont see a cylinder of a light beam shooting away into the distance like a lazer shot from a x-wing fighter..... but it is still affected by gravity over a distance.


----------



## Airframes (Mar 11, 2010)

Jan is the one to answer this question. As we all know, he drinks Guinness, which, of course, is very dark. I do believe it comes out faster than it went in, and produces a distinctive noise, presumably a sonic 'boom' (so I've been told), therfore it must be at least faster than the speed of sound.....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 11, 2010)

Geedee said:


> Gravity travels at the speed of light...
> 
> ...Light cannot move or travel


Have a think Gary


----------



## herman1rg (Mar 11, 2010)

I think the speed of dark relates to twilight. The length of twilight after sunset and before sunrise is heavily influenced by the latitude of the observer. In the Arctic and Antarctic regions, twilight (if at all) can last for several hours.
This is because at low latitudes the sun's apparent movement is perpendicular to the observer's horizon. As one gets closer to the Arctic and Antarctic circles, the sun's disk moves toward the observer's horizon at a lower angle. The observer's earthly location will pass through the various twilight zones less directly, taking more time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 11, 2010)

Interesting subject...

But dark doesn't travel (or move in a perceptable fashion) since it's always present.

When you turn off the light in the room, the darkness seems to fill the room as the lamp shuts off, but in actuality the light diminishes from the darkness.

An analogy would be an empty glass. It is just a void until someone fills it with liquid. So you don't ask "how fast the void travels", you ask how fast the liquid fills the glass. The same could be said for pouring out the liquid. You don't gauge the speed the void of the glass increses, you measure how fast the liquid flows from the glass...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 11, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Jan is the one to answer this question. As we all know, he drinks Guinness, which, of course, is very dark. I do believe it comes out faster than it went in, and produces a distinctive noise, presumably a sonic 'boom' (so I've been told), therfore it must be at least faster than the speed of sound.....


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 11, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Does that not imply
> that it has no mass? No mass, no scalar value, no means of carrying energy ergo no 'speed of dark'


Yes but you say it so much nicer I think


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 11, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Jan is the one to answer this question. As we all know, he drinks Guinness, which, of course, is very dark. I do believe it comes out faster than it went in, and produces a distinctive noise, presumably a sonic 'boom' (so I've been told), therfore it must be at least faster than the speed of sound.....



So, due to the higher viscosity of dark, when comapred to light, then it must travel slower. Exactly how much slower would depend on the temperature of said dark...


----------



## KMeyrick (Mar 11, 2010)

Geedee said:


> What is the speed of dark ?. Is it affected by vacuum...total or partial.... gravity, atmospheric density.
> 
> Over to you



It depends on if dark is a boy or a girl. 

Boy dark is faster than girl dark. 

Now if we were to ask the _intelligence_ of dark......... _*THAT*_ would be a whole 'nuther conversation.



(((runs away and finds cover!!!!!!!)))


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Jan is the one to answer this question. As we all know, he drinks Guinness, which, of course, is very dark. I do believe it comes out faster than it went in, and produces a distinctive noise, presumably a sonic 'boom' (so I've been told), therfore it must be at least faster than the speed of sound.....



....and the reason for you getting a 1/32 Wildcat showed up your tailpipe _was_....?


----------



## Butters (Mar 12, 2010)

In Genesis, God is reported to have said, "Let there be light!".

From this we can derive the plausible conclusion that dark somehow arrived 'there' first, and hence further make the plausible and parsimonious inference that it did so because dark is inherently faster than light. As light possesses a maximum velocity (in vacuum) of 300,000 km/sec, it follows that dark has a MINIMUM velocity (in vacuum) of 300,000+ km/sec.

QED

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 12, 2010)

I have to disagree, the Speed of Dark is slooooooooooooooooooow.

I base this on an incidence when I was in um "involved" with a girlfriend when my mom walked in. I hit the light switch but it took *forever* for the darkness to appear.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Butters (Mar 12, 2010)

That's what you get for wearing those fun glow-in-the-dark condoms, pal.

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 12, 2010)

LMAO Nice!


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

Butters said:


> In Genesis, God is reported to have said, "Let there be light!".
> 
> From this we can derive the plausible conclusion that dark somehow arrived 'there' first, and hence further make the plausible and parsimonious inference that it did so because dark is inherently faster than light. As light possesses a maximum velocity (in vacuum) of 300,000 km/sec, it follows that dark has a MINIMUM velocity (in vacuum) of 300,000+ km/sec


No mention of "Let there be dark!" then...


----------



## Marcel (Mar 12, 2010)

Dark is slow because of slowness of mass. As we all know the darkest thing in the universe is a black hole, a colapsed star. This colapsed star presumely has great mas (hence sucking up light). Great mass means great slowness, according to my physics books, hence dark is slow...


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Dark is slow because of slowness of mass. As we all know the darkest thing in the universe is a black hole, a collapsed star. This colapsed star presumely has great mass (hence sucking up light). Great mass means great slowness, according to my physics books, hence dark is slow...


There is not (necessarily) anything special about the mass of a black hole, it is its density that is special. The mass isn't greater than that of a healthy star and from a distance, the gravitational pull of a black hole is correspondingly no different either. It is because you can get so close to the total mass of a black hole that its gravity is so enormously strong.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 12, 2010)

I would say, after sucking up all mass in the neighborhood, the mass will be greatly increased.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

Marcel said:


> I would say, after sucking up all mass in the neighbourhood, the mass will be greatly increased


Explain?
If there are 50 Euro coins distributed randomly around my house and I collect them up and put them in a jar, will they magically become 51?

The mass stays the same but the density of the entity (my coins) has become much greater


----------



## Marcel (Mar 12, 2010)

Your jar has increased in mass


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Your jar has increased in mass


And wealth...


----------



## Butters (Mar 12, 2010)

Just don't leave your Euro jar anywhere that it gets dark or dark may get your Euros! After all, I hear that "Darkness begats dishonesty"...

BTW, does anyone have any info regarding the intimate detalls of how, or with who, darkness begats all those little dishonesties? And no, I don't want the 900 number...

Oh yeah, maybe darkness isn't really faster than light. Mebbe it gets ahead by cheating.

JL


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 12, 2010)

I'd be willing to bet Gary had noooooooooooooooo idea that this CRAP would go this far.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2010)

I think you first need to define dark and go from there. To me dark is absent of mass, volume, etc so therefore it can't travel or move in the general sense.

If dark exists as a tangible object, then that just blew the big bang theory out the window. not to mention the bible.


----------



## Airframes (Mar 13, 2010)

I couldn't sleep, so I decided to try to get at least some basic measurements of dark, in order to establish a possible speed, if any. The problem was, as it was dark, I couldn't see to measure anything !


----------



## Aussie1001 (Mar 13, 2010)

I agree with the principle that "dark" as such is just the absence of light. Therefore it would follow that, if one wanted to give it a speed it would be the speed of light because it can only come as fast as the light can leave. If one turns off a light in a room it cannot be completely dark until all the light is gone. 
Furthermore I read a comment earlier that said that light was not a "beam" as such. I would disagree with this, the only reason you can't see the been shooting away from you is because it's moving so fast. Our eyes can't pick up something traveling over the speed of sound let alone the speed of light.

Hmm, that's my rant for the day anyway.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 13, 2010)

Besides, we say "The Speed of Light", not "The Speed At Which The Air Gets Out of The Way of the Bullet".


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 13, 2010)

After reading through this thread I am further convinced that some of you need medication...


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 13, 2010)

Wayne Little said:


> After reading through this thread I am further convinced that some of you need medication


Wibble...


----------



## Njaco (Mar 13, 2010)

giggidy giggidy


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 14, 2010)

...


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 14, 2010)

Wayne Little said:


> After reading through this thread I am further convinced that some of you need medication...



"Some"?????


----------



## Geedee (Mar 14, 2010)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> I'd be willing to bet Gary had noooooooooooooooo idea that this CRAP would go this far.



Welllll.....I did have another thought on this matter....

If I was travelling at the speed of light in a spaeceship...and switched a torch on...would I be able to see where I'm going ?...or would the light go back into the torch and recharge the batteries ?

Medication...nahhhh, not me mate... a couple of tinnies of the Amber Nectar, and it al makes sense !!!!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 14, 2010)

I'd say medication _and_ a padded room with nice colourful jackets.....


----------



## Geedee (Mar 14, 2010)

Dude ...now you're talking....errrr as long as the lights stay on !!


----------



## Marcel (Mar 14, 2010)

Geedee said:


> If I was travelling at the speed of light in a spaeceship...and switched a torch on...would I be able to see where I'm going ?...or would the light go back into the torch and recharge the batteries ?


Well, I guess the light would be shining a few hours before you switched the torch on. So you would be able to read were you would be going in a few hours time..


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 15, 2010)

Geedee said:


> Welllll.....I did have another thought on this matter....
> 
> If I was travelling at the speed of light in a spaeceship...and switched a torch on...would I be able to see where I'm going ?...or would the light go back into the torch and recharge the batteries ?
> 
> Medication...nahhhh, not me mate... a couple of tinnies of the Amber Nectar, and it al makes sense !!!!



That would all depend on where the light was in relation to your spaceship. Like tossing a tennisball inside a 747. The tennis ball is not traveling at 300mph, no, but it also does not smash through the rear of the airplane either. So if you flipped the switch on a torch/flashlight that's INSIDE the spaceship, you'll be able to see normally. If you flip on your headlights, while going the speed of light, then you've got yourself a debate! I believe the light will emerge from the bulb, yes, but with the added impulse of the spacecraft as well as light's own inherent speed...for a short time, anyway, until reacted upon by other cosmic influences that will slow it down to its natural speed. So, you'll get headlights, they just won't illuminate very far in front of you.


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 15, 2010)

Think I will go in the corner and stand on my head....in the dark so no one will see me...


----------



## Geedee (Mar 15, 2010)

Wayne Little said:


> Think I will go in the corner and stand on my head....in the dark so no one will see me...



Aha...you've seen the light then ?!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 15, 2010)

If Wayne falls in the dark, will anybody hear him?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

Wayne Little said:


> Think I will go in the corner and stand on my head...


If you live down under
will that make you the right way up?


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 15, 2010)

Hmmmm...if you stand "in" the dark, that implies that the dark has substance, therefore it has mass....therefore....


----------



## Njaco (Mar 15, 2010)

ohhhhh I just love dark humour.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2010)

Morons - lol..


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 20, 2010)

Yes, but you can't have morons without there being traces of lesons. And lesons, rare though they are, also exert a gravitational force of their own, which is highly interactive with dark. Lesons, therefore, are instrumental in reducing and/or eliminating the velocity of dark. The right lesons, applied correctly, can even allow the passage of light.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 20, 2010)

LMAO @ "morons"

I'm trying to visualize a spacecraft that not only can travel at the speed of light...but has headlights...


----------



## Njaco (Mar 20, 2010)

and a set of taildarks.


----------



## BikerBabe (Mar 20, 2010)

Jeez, it must've been dark for you guys for a looooooooooooong time, _that_'s how incredibly dark this is!


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 20, 2010)

"Taildarks" are only available on the 2012 models, ya know. Of course you do know how they operate, right? They draw darkness up the tailpipe of the spacecraft, creating a sort of light-vacuum, causing an effect similar to the air flowing over the top of an airplane wing. The butt of the spacecraft is "encouraged" to follow the nose, effectively "pushing" the spacecraft along. Really helps with the gas mileage and EPA ratings!


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 21, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> If you live down under
> will that make you the right way up?



Don't know...I'm in the Dark, remember!



drgondog said:


> Morons - lol..



 Sums it up Bill!


----------



## Marcel (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm sure this is the Forum's darkest hour...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 24, 2010)

RabidAlien said:


> "Taildarks"



Interesting point. How do you know if the Taildarks are "on" or the Tailights are off?


----------



## timshatz (Mar 24, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to disagree, the Speed of Dark is slooooooooooooooooooow.
> 
> I base this on an incidence when I was in um "involved" with a girlfriend when my mom walked in. I hit the light switch but it took *forever* for the darkness to appear.



Adds a new dimension to the conversation. Whereas Light is affected by Gravity, is Dark affected by Human Interaction? For instance, there are more car crashes after dark. More people get drunk after dark. More people have sex after Dark. 

So Dark is probably relative based on Human Interaction. 

The parts of the Universe that are Dark, are only Dark when viewed by a Human Being. Before that, they were neither dark no light. Kind of like Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, but for Dark.

I have no idea where I'm going with this.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 24, 2010)

Good premise. I know that a third of the human experience is sleep and everytime I go to sleep it slowly gets dark.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 24, 2010)

Njaco said:


> ...it slowly gets dark


No further questions, your honour
any notion that dark is faster than light has been quashed by said Mr Njaco..


----------



## timshatz (Mar 24, 2010)

Njaco said:


> I know that a third of the human experience is sleep and everytime I go to sleep it slowly gets dark.




WAIT A MINUTE! You've hit the nail on the head! Sleep causes Darkness. All we have to do is make sure nobody on the Planet is asleep for one instant and darkness will dissappear (as it is obvious that boozing, sexing, crashing are all affects of darkness and not the cause of darkness while darkness occurs when people go to sleep)!

Maybe we can get the UN to do something about this. Make January 1 "No Sleeping Day" or some such. 

Now if I could only have Al Gore sign on to this, I could make some real money off it...


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 24, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Interesting point. How do you know if the Taildarks are "on" or the Tailights are off?



There's a light on the dashboard for the taillights. Next to it, there's a dark for the taildarks. If the taillight light is on, the taillights are on...if its dark, they're off. If the taildark dark is on, the taildarks are on. If its lit, they're off.


----------



## Airframes (Mar 24, 2010)

So are dark bulbs readily availble, in case of bulb failure? The UK equivalent to Walmart is B&Q, and I know they have various auto bulbs, but I wonder if they stock dark bulbs....and in which wattage and voltage?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2010)

They sure do, Terry...

They're called "black light" bulbs. They come in flourescent, incandescent and LED - all in various wattages. 

Used mostly in Disneyland, nightclubs and for Halloween.

Aparently, they're used in lightspeed spaceships, too...


----------



## Airframes (Mar 25, 2010)

Thanks Dave, I'll have a look next time I'm there. But...how do you know when they're switched on? If they're dark, and it's dark when you switch it on, it might be too dark to see if the dark is brighter than the ...dark.....


----------



## timshatz (Mar 25, 2010)

RabidAlien said:


> There's a light on the dashboard for the taillights. Next to it, there's a dark for the taildarks. If the taillight light is on, the taillights are on...if its dark, they're off. If the taildark dark is on, the taildarks are on. If its lit, they're off.



Brilliant! Sounds like the logic from Catch-22 on Major Major. "When I'm here, I'm not here so don't send anyone into my office. But when I'm not here, I'm here so you can send them in."

Brilliant RA, you have a future in writing literature if you ever get bored of posting to the WW2AIRCRAFT Forum!


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Thanks Dave, I'll have a look next time I'm there. But...how do you know when they're switched on? If they're dark, and it's dark when you switch it on, it might be too dark to see if the dark is brighter than the ...dark.....



Oh, you'll know when they're on...

It's sort of like that deep inner sense that tells you just by looking, that the cooking element on the hotplate is hot (just a fraction of a second before you touch it).


----------



## Geedee (Mar 25, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Thanks Dave, I'll have a look next time I'm there. But...how do you know when they're switched on? If they're dark, and it's dark when you switch it on, it might be too dark to see if the dark is brighter than the ...dark.....



So is that a case of dark pollution ?...bit like the hassle you have when trying to use a telescope in the back garden at night to look at the stars and its all dimmed by light glare from street lights / town lights ?

Ere...hang on a minute...have we just discovered an new scientific fact ? We all know that lights at night attract moths....and now it seems, the dark attracts the stars and planets...well, you dont normally see them during the day do you !.


----------



## Airframes (Mar 25, 2010)

Good point Gary!
Ah, but wait! I banged my head on the underside of my desk yesterday, during the day, when it was light. I saw stars then, but it did go dark for a while.....


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2010)

Bernanke Says U.S. Fiscal Outlook Somewhat Dark?


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 25, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Bernanke Says U.S. Fiscal Outlook Somewhat Dark?



Heavy stuff, there....heavy.



:ducks:


----------



## Florence (Mar 26, 2010)

What have you blokes been smoking?


----------



## Geedee (Mar 26, 2010)

Florence said:


> What have you blokes been smoking?



Dunno mate....its dark in 'ere !


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 26, 2010)

Florence said:


> What have you blokes been smoking?



 Hehehehe....yer just jealous cuz you've been left in the dark!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 26, 2010)

Question: If you can turn on a light, can you turn on a dark?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 27, 2010)

Gotta love dark humor!


----------



## parsifal (Mar 27, 2010)

oh gosh......even the serious comments are weird in this thread.

For the record, the properties of light are not fully understood , and cannot be explained by any single theory. Since darkness is essentially the absence of light, its going to follow that our understanding of the properties of darkness are just as incomplete as they are about the properties of light. 

For the record light displays some of the qualities of a particle, but by definition has no mass. This suggests, along with other properties of light that it has some properties of a wave.

Light cannot have mass because it cannot and does not obey the accepted laws of physics. If it has mass, einstein and others have proven that it would require more energy than is available to move even a tiny particle of mass. Moreover, as mass starts to approach the speed of light, "C" , its mass increases, until when it reaches the speed of light it has an infinite mass. Moreover, as mass approaches the speed of light, the passage of time for that mass would slow down, until by the time that "C" was reached, time for that object would actually stop. it has been theorised that if the object was somehow able to exceed the speed of light it might actually start to move backwards.

Light is not slowed or stopped relative to outside observation, but we have never been abale to travel at c so cannot know what is happening to time relative to the beam of light itself. We cannot tell if two beams of light shooting parrallel to each other, on parrallel course with each other, would see themselves or each other as two ships sailing parrallel to each other might be able to see each other.

Even this might not be correct, and its about at this point that my head starts to implode. The theories about the exploding relative universe are about us also being in motion and expanding at a rate similar to C, so where does that leave us....buggered if i know....


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 27, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Even this might not be correct, and its about at this point that my head starts to implode. The theories about the exploding relative universe are about us also being in motion and expanding at a rate similar to C, so where does that leave us....buggered if i know....



Yep. Sucks to be in the dark. Buggered.


----------



## Geedee (Mar 27, 2010)

Well...as i was walking over to get the horse into the stable for the night, I was thinking about this topic and I think (therefore I am) I've got it cracked.

You see, according to our knowledgable scientific dudes with the big brains and even bigger calculators...the speed of light is 186,000 miles second (OK, I can just about get my head around that as its the speed my bank balance dissapears every month !) which is pretty fast.

Now we all know that light is the opposite of dark so it makes sense therefore that the speed of dark is the direct inverse of light !. Therefore, the speed of dark is the same as light but with a negative in front, i.e the speed of dark is MINUS 186,000 miles a second.

Only problem I can see is that no-one has been able to prove this, cos they need the lights switched on to check their instruments thereby instantly removing the dark. In fact...we will probably never be able to see how fast the speed of dark is cos its going away from us so damn fast that its gone before we get to see it........ 

You say that Light cannot have mass because it cannot and does not obey the accepted laws of physics. 

Well hang on minute here. If the oppsosite of light is dark, what about dark matter (And Red matter..it does exist cos I saw it on the latest Star Treck Movie so I know its for real dontchya know !). If you can have dark matter then you should also have light matter (dont forget the inverse rule) therefore light can have mass....and I'm beginning to lose the plot at this point, so I'm off for another tinnie of the Amber Nectar from the cooler....


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 27, 2010)

Hmmmm....so.....maybe the things that go "bump" in the night aren't really things at all, but dark matter bumping into something in the dark, because it can't see? Wow....it all makes sense now, and I can finally turn off my HelloKitty (tm) nightlight!


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 28, 2010)

I think I'm beginning to understand............... .....Why? I don't know, he's on third and I don't care!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 28, 2010)

Parsifal, that was a valiant effort but these guys are medeval and living in the Dark Pages.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 28, 2010)

parsifal said:


> oh gosh......even the serious comments are weird in this thread.
> 
> For the record, the properties of light are not fully understood , and cannot be explained by any single theory. Since darkness is essentially the absence of light, its going to follow that our understanding of the properties of darkness are just as incomplete as they are about the properties of light.
> 
> ...




Dude, you are trying way too hard. 

Besides, I think GeeDee has it. The problem with measuring the speed of dark, is all the measurements have to be done in the dark. Can't see the intstruments. So dark could have speed and masss and not be the absence of light at all. But everytime you turn on the lights, dark is already gone. Can't be measured.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 28, 2010)

You're forgetting if light has no mass and dark is it's direct opposite, should dark not have infinite mass? This probably means its really slow because of the law of slowness of mass.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 28, 2010)

Well, here's the real question...

Is the light on in the 'fridge before the door opens, or just as it opens?

And, if you open the 'fridge at night, with the kitchen lights off, does any dark get into the 'fridge before the door closes?


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 28, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, here's the real question...
> 
> Is the light on in the 'fridge before the door opens, or just as it opens?
> 
> And, if you open the 'fridge at night, with the kitchen lights off, does any dark get into the 'fridge before the door closes?



AHA!!!! So THAT'S what's been eating my leftovers!!!!!!!!! Frikkin dark mass.....


----------



## Airframes (Mar 28, 2010)

Wonder what would have happened if the 'Boss Man' had said 'and let there be Dark' ?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Wonder what would have happened if the 'Boss Man' had said 'and let there be Dark' ?


I think some people thought he said that but they live in N Korea


----------



## mikewint (Mar 31, 2010)

A black hole is black only in the sense that nothing can escape from it to the outside, hence the term "event horizon". matter crossing the horizon can and does give off radiation, lots of it. however as the mass approaches the event horizon the increasing gravitational force distorts time and causes it to slow "for the mass" the deeper into the hole the slower time "for the mass" the mass on the other hand sees time speeding up for the outside. in the hole time would run infinitely slow thus the hole takes infinite time to form.
as to the speed of dark, since light is a stream of photons, shutting off the light means terminating the stream at the source. the last emitted photon would cross at the same speed as the first. and that speed varies with the media the photons travel in. there are media in which light travels at 1 m/s


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 8, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting subject...
> 
> But dark doesn't travel (or move in a perceptable fashion) since it's always present.
> 
> ...



...and when it's been dark for a long time, it gets really _really _pitch-black dark???


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 8, 2010)

Not sure. Science is still in the dark on that one.


:ducks:


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 9, 2010)

Black-out, mayhap?


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jul 15, 2010)




----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 15, 2010)

They're still trying to shed some light on the issue.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 15, 2010)

Is it 'black light'?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 15, 2010)

BikerBabe said:


> ...and when it's been dark for a long time, it gets really _really _*pitch-black dark*???



That only happens at the end of night-time baseball ganes. I read the survey, I know.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2010)

BikerBabe said:


> Black-out, mayhap?


Dunno...I haven't been en-light-ened yet...


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 16, 2010)

GrauGeist said:


> Dunno...I haven't been en-light-ened yet...



Oh - the light hasn't yet been switched on? Nothing new in _that_...*runs like he££*


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 16, 2010)

Ouch....that shot in the dark turned out to be a low (light) blow!


----------



## mikewint (Jul 16, 2010)

bikerbabe, while you are not actually measuring the speed of the void you can measure the decrease of the voidness of the glass. it's just the inverse of the fill speed. add one photon to a cubic meter of space and it is no longer a total void. thus the speed of dark is the same as the speed of light in the medium in question


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 16, 2010)

Somehow, I've get the feeling that you all are trying to keep me in the dark here....


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jul 16, 2010)

Lucky, I really don't think you need us for that. Sorry, I'll go back to my little corner now.


----------



## Geedee (Jul 16, 2010)

I've typed this bit in white font...to help you see it !


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 16, 2010)

( )


----------



## mikewint (Jul 16, 2010)

Dark, per se, is a human perception indicating the absence of acceptible energy photons striking the retinal cones and initiating chemical reactions therein. infra-red photons and or ultra-violet photons have too little and too much energy to initiate these reactions and are perceived as darkness by humans. red, green, and blue photons not entering the eye are also perceived as dark, as in a laser beam viewed laterally. even intergalactic space is filled with EM radiation and not dark except to human senses


----------



## Geedee (Jul 16, 2010)

mikewint said:


> Dark, per se, is a human perception indicating the absence of acceptible energy photons striking the retinal cones and initiating chemical reactions therein. infra-red photons and or ultra-violet photons have too little and too much energy to initiate these reactions and are perceived as darkness by humans. red, green, and blue photons not entering the eye are also perceived as dark, as in a laser beam viewed laterally. even intergalactic space is filled with EM radiation and not dark except to human senses



Absolutely !..an iluminating comment ......and I promise not to write in white font again !

Interesting comments there...so would for instance, you percieve 'dark' differently from me ...for example ...as dark would appear to rely on the state of ones eyes (rods / cones ...from what I can remember form school all those years ago !) to percieve ?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 16, 2010)

mikewint said:


> bikerbabe, while you are not actually measuring the speed of the void you can measure the decrease of the voidness of the glass. it's just the inverse of the fill speed. add one photon to a cubic meter of space and it is no longer a total void. thus the speed of dark is the same as the speed of light in the medium in question



But is that glass half full or half empty?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 16, 2010)

What came first the hen or the egg?


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 16, 2010)

Was it a dark hen or a light hen?


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 17, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> What came first the hen or the egg?



Wasn't the answer to this, global news the other day.......?


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 17, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> What came first the hen or the egg?



The egg.
Dinosaurs laid eggs, the hen evolved later from the dinos.
That oughta answer that age-old question. 
Personally, I think it was a dark egg, laid by a hippocroccofrog.


----------



## Vic Balshaw (Jul 17, 2010)

So the Hippocroccofrog came first.................


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 17, 2010)

Ah... Now I get it..... No I don't.......I'm still in the dark... I think?


----------



## mikewint (Jul 30, 2010)

GeeDee, yes you would, as in individuals whom are color "blind". if your red cones were nonfunctional you would percieve a room lit by red light as being "dark". the same principle as infra-red sniper scopes which "see" in the "dark". dark which is actually lit by nonperceived photons in the infra-red spectrum


----------



## BikerBabe (Aug 4, 2014)

Check this out, guys!   


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geedee (Aug 29, 2014)

So...as Terry asked, this doesn't differentiate between African or European dark !. So we are no nearer or farer to getting to the bottom of this...and No, I have no idea dark actually has a bottom !


----------



## Geedee (Aug 29, 2014)

Njaco said:


> Question: If you can turn on a light, can you turn on a dark?



Yes...but only when its dark


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2014)

> Question: If you can turn on a light, can you turn on a dark?



Yes, but only if she's willing...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Aug 29, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, but only if she's willing...


 You said it first.


----------



## Wayne Little (Aug 30, 2014)




----------



## Njaco (Aug 31, 2014)

Ok, who started THIS thread back up??? Come on, tell me, don't hide in the dark!!!!

.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Aug 31, 2014)

Sorry Njaco, I don't know. They left me totally in the dark.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Boa (Aug 31, 2014)

at6 said:


> Sorry Njaco, I don't know. They left me totally in the dark.


So... if you already are there, how fast are you going?


----------



## Marcel (Aug 31, 2014)

Oh no, this is the forum's darkest hour...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 31, 2014)

Sooo...if there was a title song for this thread, would it be "Fade to Black"?


----------



## mikewint (Aug 31, 2014)

Speed/Velocity are of course relative terms depending on your reference point. An aircraft traveling at 600mph is doing so only from an Earth frame of refenence. Switch frames and it is stationary while the Earth moves under it. It's all Relative


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 31, 2014)

mikewint said:


> Speed/Velocity are of course relative terms depending on your reference point. An aircraft traveling at 600mph is doing so only from an Earth frame of refenence. Switch frames and it is stationary while the Earth moves under it. It's all Relative



But, the speed of light is constant, irrespective of the viewers frame of reference. Is it the same with the speed of dark?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2014)

Light does have some strange physical properties. you cant apply standard Newtonian physics to the way it moves, including its speed, or the way it behaves, such as around extreme gravitational or magnetic fields. by rights, as its speed approaches C, its mass should also approach infinite. Of course it doesn't, suggesting it doesn't have any mass to begin with. but then, it has properties suggesting that it is particulate, which then suggests mass.

On a related, but different vein, Hawking has suggested that the proof that the Universe is finite is that the sky at night is dark. if it were infinite, the sky would be white. there is a problem with this, however, as many physicists, for various reasons have pointed out. It suggests that light always travels in a straight line, which we now think it does not. it fails to appreciate that space is full of obstructions and particles that may block the passage of light. It also fails to take into account that light, whether as a wave or a particle, might eventually run out of puff...remember Newtons laws are seriously challenged by this stuff.....Energy might be created and it might be destroyed. 

This stuff can seriously mess with your sanity if you put too much thought to it...They are coming I know they are coming....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 31, 2014)

> Sooo...if there was a title song for this thread, would it be "Fade to Black"?



C'mon Dave, it's obvious it's Dark Side of the Moon, "The luuu-natic is on the grass..."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 31, 2014)

Yes indeed!


----------



## at6 (Aug 31, 2014)

I just had this thought which might a little convoluted. If light can be bent, what about dark?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2014)

well, if its a serious question, then for this discussion, dark can be described as a 'lack of light. can a "lack of light" be bent. No, it cant, but the light around it can be bent, such that the position of the dark is apparently moved.

Talking about the dark is similar to talking about nothing as a "something". Not having something is talk about nothing. Does that mean nothing is something?

We can of course discuss Dark Energy or Dark matter if we want to discuss the general term "dark". In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, on a mass–energy equivalence basis, the observable universe contains 26.8% dark matter, 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter. Again on a mass–energy equivalence basis, the density of dark energy (1.67 × 10−27 kg/m3) is very low: in the solar system, it is estimated only 6 tons of dark energy would be found within the radius of Pluto's orbit. However, it comes to dominate the mass–energy of the universe because it is uniform across space.

Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously, and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant can be formulated to be equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar fields that do change in space can be difficult to distinguish from a cosmological constant because the change may be extremely slow.

I didnt write this, and I only understand bits of it. 

Told you this stuff is dangerous for mental health reasons.....


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2014)

at6 said:


> I just had this thought which might a little convoluted. If light can be bent, what about dark?


The bigger question would be: how would you be able to tell you're bending dark...if there's no light to see it?


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 1, 2014)

My head is spinning....I can't tell light from Dark anymore....


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 1, 2014)

An interesting bit of information. Did you know that it is easy to convert light into dark?

By the simple method of stacking two polarising filters, rotating one of the filters varies the amount of light that is converted. try it at home folks!


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 1, 2014)

> If light can be bent, what about dark?



Homosexuality can be found in all forms of nature...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> An interesting bit of information. Did you know that it is easy to convert light into dark?
> 
> By the simple method of stacking two polarising filters, rotating one of the filters varies the amount of light that is converted. try it at home folks!


I was shooting a landscape across a body of water one time and I had a Circular Polarizing Filter on my lens. Since it was bright out, I was still wearing my sunglasses.

Looking through the viewfinder, I rotated the filter to elimintae the glare of the water and expose the colorful gravel and all of a sudden, the view went dark!

Of course, my polarized sunglasses reacted with the filter, but I'll admit it was a bit of a shock at first.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm guessing you're all in a dark mood. I get lightheaded when reading all this.


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 2, 2014)

I think (erronously at times, perhaps,) that since the dark is already there, that it doesn't have to be quicker than light, as its there already; conversely I do not think lthe speed of light is the fastest thing in the universe, its just that we haven't found (or rediscovered) anything faster yet.

What about the speed of electrons and other super microscopic bits of particals that orbit the central nucleus or orbit one of the orbiting electrons (Bosson?) the of a/an partical/atom. We can't even see those sub parts usually even with our best equipment because to super position wise, they are so fast they are all around it at once and yet nowhere too. 

..Assuming that the universe is only ruled by gravity physics and that stellar electrical conductivity/plasma theories which are academically ignored, refuted and considered bunkum , so is not considered part of the matrix of information, theory models accepted though that are held as the current 'this is it, theory'.

Myself, I think some of the academics are covering their arses and reputations by squashing ideas that do not support their own statuses their respective 'house' of learning/academia at times, sometimes with the level belligerence that make tyrant blush.

It is a pity most of the ancient libraries were burnt down and/or destroyed by one form or another of so called religious people, humanity has forgotten lost much..

Mmm, maybe its too early in the day for my cafine fueled musing.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Sep 2, 2014)

razor1uk said:


> I think (erronously at times, perhaps,) that since the dark is already there, that it doesn't have to be quicker than light, as its there already; conversely I do not think lthe speed of light is the fastest thing in the universe, its just that we haven't found (or rediscovered) anything faster yet.
> 
> What about the speed of electrons and other super microscopic bits of particals that orbit the central nucleus or orbit one of the orbiting electrons (Bosson?) the of a/an partical/atom. We can't even see those sub parts usually even with our best equipment because to super position wise, they are so fast they are all around it at once and yet nowhere too.
> 
> ...



Gave you some bacon to help you recover


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 2, 2014)

I thank you Herman1RG, apologies for my slightly off punctuations and tangental musings


----------



## Geedee (Sep 2, 2014)

razor1uk said:


> Mmm, maybe its too early in the day for my cafine fueled musing.



Is that light or dark cafine ?


----------



## mikewint (Sep 2, 2014)

A Few misconceptions: #1 The speed of light is not a fixed quantity. The speed of light depends totally upon the medium in which it travels. Light traveling through air slows when it enters water and as a result bends (pencil in a glass of water). Your car can easily exceed the speed of light in certain media. CHERENKOV radiation (blue glow seen in nuclear reactors) is caused by electrons traveling faster than the speed of light in that media.
The Danish physicist Lene Hau in 1998 slowed light to just 17m/s (about 38mph). 
Now the speed of light in a pure vacuum is 299,800,000 m/s (about 186,239 miles/s). When a material object (one that has mass) is accelerated energy (force) is required to produce the acceleration. As you approach this velocity (Light Speed) the mass of the object increases (energy used to accelerate is being converted into mass) requiring more energy to further accelerate which is converted into more mass which requires more energy which is converted into more mass..... Thus no material object can even reach this velocity let alone exceed it. Fermilab's Tevatron accelerator brings 200 protons to 99.9999% of this speed using 70 MegaWatts of electricity (about the power consumption of a town of 30,000).
Light does not consist of particles or waves. The particleness of light is that its energy content is quantized into packets of pure energy called PHOTONS. The waveness of light is ability to refract, have a frequency, and wavelength. Waves by definition are a disturbance in a medium. A vacuum is by definition NOTHING which then begs the question WHAT do Light Waves disturb? Thus Light is neither and both at the same time.
Since photons are pure energy they have no mass and require no energy to accelerate and can travel at 299,800,000 m/s.
For objects having mass traveling near this velocity has consequences other than just the mass increase. They lengthen in the line of flight and time slows. AS MEASURED BY AN OUTSIDE VIEWER. To a viewer inside all would appear totaly unchanged thus a beam of light within the system would still travel at 299,800,000m/s. The invariance of Light Speed is a measurement problem as all who measure do so within their particular frame of reference.
POLARIZATION - For those who mentioned polarized light filters try this, use THREE filters. #1 Filter polarized horizontally and #3 polarized vertically. The result as you observed is no light coming through as the filters are at right angles to each other. NOW, take #2 filter rotate it 45 degrees and place it between filters #1 and #3. 
Like magic light passes through all three as the quantum uncertanty of the photons polarization expresses itself

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 21, 2015)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geedee (Jan 21, 2015)

I've just spent 5 minutes staring at that black box....with the sound turned up !....waiting for something to suddenly appear and make me sh.....out ! I now feel a right numpty. Good job its dark outside an no-one saw me


----------



## Njaco (Jan 21, 2015)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jan 22, 2015)

I WILL NOT PUSH PLAY BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My brother probably would.


----------



## Geedee (Jan 23, 2015)

I'm going to watch this tonite !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 23, 2015)

I watched it - it's very over rated, and leaves you in the dark ............

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 23, 2015)

Scientists at the Herriot Watt University in Scotland, have just slowed down the speed of light, so I wonder if they can speed-up the speed of dark. Or are they both the same thing ..................


----------



## Wayne Little (Jan 24, 2015)

No Friggin' idea....


----------



## Geedee (Jan 25, 2015)

Airframes said:


> Scientists at the Herriot Watt University in Scotland, have just slowed down the speed of light, so I wonder if they can speed-up the speed of dark. Or are they both the same thing ..................



Could've saved them the bother, they could have had the headlights on my truck ...useless !. My tail-darks on the other hand are brilliant...errrr, I think ?!


----------



## Airframes (Jan 25, 2015)

Reminds me of my business partner, about 15 years ago. We had a stand at one of the Tank Museum display days, and he went off looking around the trade stalls, and came back with a huge smile on his face, carrying an equally huge box of 'Chemlume' sticks.
"Got this lot for a fiver" he said "they'll be great on our night exercise events."
"Better take them back, or spend a fortune on the correct goggles then." I replied, "Cos they're infra-red - ****head!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jun 7, 2015)

What Is The Speed Of Dark? | IFLScience


----------



## Geedee (Jun 7, 2015)

Oh Brilliant...sorry...darkiant...there's no mention if a half a degree in air temperature affects it at a certain elevation...which it should as we all know it gets darker and colder the higher you go !


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2015)

Guinness is dark...


----------



## at6 (Jun 7, 2015)

With that things in my life have been going lately, my days are dark.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 8, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Guinness is dark...



Yeah but even they saw the light and now have a Blonde Lager.


----------



## at6 (Jun 9, 2015)

Njaco said:


> Yeah but even they saw the light and now have a Blonde Lager.


But is it smart enough to get out of the bottle?


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 9, 2015)

Probably not....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2015)

Bottle??


----------



## mikewint (Jun 9, 2015)

*NOTICE: Due to Budget Considerations the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been Removed*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jun 9, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Bottle??


 Here in the states it is bottled.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 10, 2015)

at6 said:


> Here in the states it is bottled.



and packaged with invisible paint.........................


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 10, 2015)

mikewint said:


> *NOTICE: Due to Budget Considerations the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been Removed*



And just when I thought I had made it there....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 13, 2015)

Oh this is dark, so very dark.....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2015)

mikewint said:


> *NOTICE: Due to Budget Considerations the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been Removed*


I always thought that the light at the end of the tunnel was actually a train...


----------



## mikewint (Jun 13, 2015)

OK so from Michael's post we have the *Speed of Dark: 0.0885 posts per day*
P.S.
Dave, my experiences would tend to be in 100% alignment with you

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2015)

By the way, if you're ever driving down the road in the evening and suddenly see a Buick grill emblem appear in your headlight beam, hang on, because it's gonna hurt...


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 14, 2015)

No thanks Dave......


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 17, 2015)

Speaking from experience there, huh, Dave?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2015)

um yep 

There has to be a list somewhere of things one does not want to find in their headlight beams, such as:
Deer
Moose
Large unexplained dark spots
A person
An Armadillo
A Red Kangaroo
and of course
A Buick emblem (still attached to the Buick)...


----------



## mikewint (Jun 18, 2015)

I'll see your Buick and raise you a Gray. You could've been collected and PROBED!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2015)

mikewint said:


> I'll see your Buick and raise you a Gray. *You could've been collected and PROBED*!!


I was.

By the insurance company...


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 18, 2015)

..ouch , I assume to some extent, most of their clients would like the insewance companies probed too  , to find those who are paid a finders fee for allegedly sharing some supposedly private details to marketeers  , 
...but with current relations as they are of late, the Finders Fee has morphed into the Fifas Fee  .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jun 18, 2015)

mikewint said:


> I'll see your Buick and raise you a Gray. You could've been collected and PROBED!!


Where did you find a recent photo of California's Lt. Gov.?


----------



## mikewint (Jun 18, 2015)

Dave, with all love, join the que it is a long one though I've hurt the bastids once or twice


----------



## Geedee (Jul 28, 2016)

*For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light. 
The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As 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 black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. lA new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of 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 this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way. 
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

I've added a picture of dark for you to play with !  .





*

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## T Bolt (Jul 28, 2016)

Looks like Gary's sloped a cog. Anyone know where that big butterfly net we keep on hand for Jan is?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2016)

Why is Gary standing in a dark closet?


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 28, 2016)

Because he's fast.

I think we each should send this to 5 teachers and then see how long it takes the world to adopt it as fact

Like bulbs and candles, ignorance is a sucker of knowledge.


----------



## Geedee (Jul 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Why is Gary standing in a dark closet?


WTF....you can see me ?

I dunno...here I am researching colors for a model I'm building in my closet and then...BLAMMO...some-ones found me !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 28, 2016)




----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 28, 2016)




----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jul 28, 2016)

But can anyone answer this for me, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow flying in a darkened closet?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Why is Gary standing in a dark closet?



Question is now, when will he come out his closet and will we be support, when he does?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 28, 2016)

Lucky13 said:


> Question is now, when will he come out his closet and will we be support, when he does?



This forum is nothing if not supportive.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2016)

Bucksnort101 said:


> But can anyone answer this for me, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow flying in a darkened closet?



African swallow or European swallow??


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 29, 2016)

Bucksnort101 said:


> But can anyone answer this for me, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow flying in a darkened closet?


Ask Gary, I think he's still in there


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 29, 2016)




----------



## Geedee (Jul 29, 2016)

Oi...no swallowing in my closet !

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jul 31, 2016)

I think the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch might just light up that closet ......................


----------



## at6 (Aug 2, 2016)

Once more from the darkest edges of the universe this thread has re-emerged.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 2, 2016)




----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2018)

Did we already come to a conclusion about the speed of dark or are we left in the dark?


----------



## Wayne Little (Jan 3, 2018)

probably the latter.....


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 3, 2018)

We are in the dark, but moving very quickly.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 3, 2018)

I can now positively confirm that the speed of dark is about equal to the speed of light.
I went to sit down on a revolving office chair, which revolved as I hit it, tipping me off sideways, onto the floor, with my head hitting the edge of the coffee table. 
It got dark very quickly indeed !


----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2018)

That's why you have to wear a helmet in those chairs, Terry.


----------



## at6 (Jan 3, 2018)

I'm still in the dark.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2018)

Then turn on the light...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2018)

Did you just do that by relighting this thread Marcel...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2018)

Yeah, I thought "why not shine a light on it?"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2018)

Maybe the speed of dark is affecting the search for color pics of the model roadking01 is building

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 4, 2018)

Ah, _that's_ why we can't find the colour pic (with a 'u') ! 
It's under exposed, and therefore too dark to see !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 4, 2018)

Could also be overexposed therefore have too much light and not enough dark...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 4, 2018)

But if it's too dark to see the color, does the color even exist?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 4, 2018)

To see, or not to see. Whether 'tis darker in the light, or lighter in the dark ...................... doth the dark travel faster when it's dark, or when it's light ?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 5, 2018)

Whoa, I didn't see that one coming...........


----------



## Airframes (Jan 5, 2018)

Can't see b*gger all in here - it's too dark !


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 5, 2018)

Or maybe you just need some coloured glasses Terry and kill 2 threads with one pair...


----------



## Airframes (Jan 5, 2018)

But what colour ?
Oh, sh*t, here we go again !!


----------



## mikewint (Jan 5, 2018)

Here weuns goes agin. Dark is not a thing as it is not a physical entity but the lack of a physical entity, light, a form of energy. Color - this one has been beaten to death multiple times in the modeling sections. Color is a physical perception within the visual cortex of the brain. It is triggered by three types of special cells (cone) in the retina. Each have a different threshold energy required to cause them to fire. Since the energy content of a photon is determined by its frequency the arrival of low energy photons is perceived as the color red. Medium energy photons are perceived as green and high energy photons as blue. Thus color TVs for example need only three types of emitters red, green, and blue.
Dark, absence of energy, zero color, however there are also a second type of cell in the retina, rod cells, containing a very sensitive to light chemical Visual Purple. This very sensitive compound will react with minimal amounts energy thus even very few photons will cause a reaction. Thus you loose color and switch seeing in various shades of gray down to total absence or black

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

OK, so what's the speed of the lac of a physical entity ........................... I know that a lack of a certain physical entity, money, can happen very quickly on a Friday night !!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 6, 2018)

Ok, I know that you Britishers talks funny and have your own vocabulary but....A non-physical entity cannot have a speed or a velocity (they're different things). Something that does not physically exist cannot move. The reduction in the quantity of your money (a physical reality) is not a movement but a non-uniform saltatory reduction. In a sense it occurs instantaneously like subtracting 1 from 2. There are only two states, you've either subtracted the 1 or you have'nt, i.e. it is not a rate hence no speed is involved.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

mikewint said:


> Ok, I know that you Britishers talks funny and have your own vocabulary but....A non-physical entity cannot have a speed or a velocity (they're different things). Something that does not physically exist cannot move. The reduction in the quantity of your money (a physical reality) is not a movement but a non-uniform saltatory reduction. In a sense it occurs instantaneously like subtracting 1 from 2. There are only two states, you've either subtracted the 1 or you have'nt, i.e. it is not a rate hence no speed is involved.


This was covered by Shakespeare in King Lear

_Foole:_ The reason why the seven Starres are no more then seven, is a pretty reason.

_Lear:_ Because they are not eight.

_Foole:_ Yes indeed, thou would'st make a good Foole.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

The speed of dark is outstripped only by the speed the Landlord of my local pub can remove money from his patrons - before serving the beer !
Oh, and we *British *have the correct vocabulary, and speak correctly - give or take the odd region ..........................


----------



## Dana Bell (Jan 6, 2018)

First, I think we should apply for a grant - someone out there must be willing to throw money at a project such as this.

I propose that we measure the the speed of cold instead of the speed of dark. If the speed of heat is the same as the speed of light, the speed of cold should match the speed of dark....

Anyone have a good watch and a tape measure?

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

Don't know - my watch has stopped due the cold, and i can't see to find a tape measure, as it's bl**dy dark in here !


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

Just found out that some members are more in the dark than others....


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

Yes, some are rather ... er.... dusky .......................


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

Exactly, in this case the dark was faster than the light. What does that tell you?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 6, 2018)

People are stupid?


----------



## mikewint (Jan 6, 2018)

Sorry Chaps but cold, like dark is NOT a physical entity and as such has NO speed or rate though we can measure a rate of transfer. Cold like dark is the absence of a measurable physical quantity. In the case of cold we are looking at the absence of heat which is the total Kinetic Energy of all particles in a system. Cold is also a relative term so that an object is only cold in comparison to a second object which has more energy, i.e. is hotter than the first object.
Temperature is essentially not directly measurable except in theory. It is the AVERAGE Kinetic Energy of all particles in a system. Thermometers do NOT actually measure temperature. They actually measure the effect temperature has on objects. Most things expand when heated and contract when cooled. Heated mercury or alcohol expand within their glass tubes and we measure that expansion or when cooled contract. A coiled metal spring expands as the temperature rises moving a pointer on a dial to a higher position. The reverse when cooled. Thus Heat and Temperature are not the same and this difference can lead to some very strange counterintuitive comparisons. Consider a white hot needle at 4000C and a 10 kg block of Ice at -5C. They have vastly different temperatures but the 10 kg ice block has vastly more heat content.
Heat pumps move the physical entity Heat from one spot to another. So there's a box in your kitchen that contains a heat pump. The pump removes the heat from inside the box and transfers it into the kitchen. You might also have heat pumps that sit in a window that pump the heat out of your house or perhaps a large reversible pump that can pump heat in either direction. Out during the summer and in during the winter


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

A platinum -platinum/rhodium thermocouple produces an induced current directly proportional to the temperature at the joint. A thermographic camera when correctly calibrated for emissivity gives a direct temperature reading accurate to less than 1% even in a cracking furnace running at 1100C.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 6, 2018)

In either case you are not directly determining the temperature but the change induced by the Kinetic Energy of the objects particles.
To directly measure an objects temperature you would have to locate every particle, measure each particles KE, and then average them. Since this is not physically possible we measure some physical change that is directly measurable and proportional like expansion/contraction, density changes, emission of electrons or photons as electrons transition energy levels within atoms


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

mikewint said:


> In either case you are not directly determining the temperature but the change induced by the Kinetic Energy of the objects particles.
> To directly measure an objects temperature you would have to locate every particle, measure each particles KE, and then average them. Since this is not physically possible we measure some physical change that is directly measurable and proportional like expansion/contraction, density changes, emission of electrons or photons as electrons transition energy levels within atoms


But that is precisely what thermography does on a black box emitter. Temperature is an average KE, a measure of an individual molecule or atom's velocity and from that a calculation of its KE is just that, it isn't a temperature.


----------



## Dana Bell (Jan 6, 2018)

mikewint said:


> Sorry Chaps but cold, like dark is NOT a physical entity and as such has NO speed or rate though we can measure a rate of transfer. Cold like dark is the absence of a measurable physical quantity. In the case of cold we are looking at the absence of heat which is the total Kinetic Energy of all particles in a system. Cold is also a relative term so that an object is only cold in comparison to a second object which has more energy, i.e. is hotter than the first object.
> Temperature is essentially not directly measurable except in theory. It is the AVERAGE Kinetic Energy of all particles in a system. Thermometers do NOT actually measure temperature. They actually measure the effect temperature has on objects. Most things expand when heated and contract when cooled. Heated mercury or alcohol expand within their glass tubes and we measure that expansion or when cooled contract. A coiled metal spring expands as the temperature rises moving a pointer on a dial to a higher position. The reverse when cooled. Thus Heat and Temperature are not the same and this difference can lead to some very strange counterintuitive comparisons. Consider a white hot needle at 4000C and a 10 kg block of Ice at -5C. They have vastly different temperatures but the 10 kg ice block has vastly more heat content.
> Heat pumps move the physical entity Heat from one spot to another. So there's a box in your kitchen that contains a heat pump. The pump removes the heat from inside the box and transfers it into the kitchen. You might also have heat pumps that sit in a window that pump the heat out of your house or perhaps a large reversible pump that can pump heat in either direction. Out during the summer and in during the winter



Sorry Mike,

Perhaps I needed a little icon with its tongue punching a hole through its cheek! 

Cheers,


Dana


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 6, 2018)

Dana Bell said:


> First, I think we should apply for a grant - someone out there must be willing to throw money at a project such as this.
> 
> I propose that we measure the the speed of cold instead of the speed of dark. If the speed of heat is the same as the speed of light, the speed of cold should match the speed of dark....Anyone have a good watch and a tape measure?
> 
> Cheers, Dana



I'm up for the challenge. I'll need a government grant in the amount of random renewable millions, 2 assistants: one blonde, one red-head, a lab overlooking the French Riviera and no means of communication what so ever. Estimated time of completion.................


----------



## mikewint (Jan 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Temperature is an average KE



Yes exactly so as long as we/you/I understand that an AVERAGE is a total SUM of all things divided by the number of things that were summed.
The AVERAGE grade on an exam is the SUM of all individual scores divided by the number of scores averaged. Statistically we look at MEAN - MEDIAN - MODE. The MEAN is the average score - MEDIAN is the middle point - Mode is the most often occurring score.



pbehn said:


> a measure of an individual molecule or atom's velocity and from that a calculation of its KE



No, not exactly. Going back to the idea of AVERAGE there has to be *more than one* and the fewer the total number the less valid the average value becomes. Two coin tosses could easily both be heads or tails. The average is then 100% heads or 100% tails totally invalid. The idea of AVERAGE is a mathematical construct and as such may not represent a physical reality. Take a room filled with 100 people. 50 weigh 100lbs and 50 weigh 200lbs. The average weight is 150lbs yet no one in the room weighs the average of 150lbs
Let's take a sample of a gas as an example. If I were to place 32.0 grams of pure Oxygen gas in a container and ask you to DIRECTLY find the temperature of the gas you would be tasked with individually locating 6.023 X 10^23 molecules - measuring the speed of each one to determine each ones KE - then summing all 6.023 X 10^23 KEs - and then dividing by 6.023 X 10^23 to find the average, which would be just that an KE value in Joules (assuming MKS units). So YES it is not directly a Celsius/Fahrenheit/ Kelvin value. But Kelvins are directly relatable to KE since zero Kelvins or Absolute Zero is zero motion and thus zero KE. Kelvins can then easily be converted to Celsius and Fahrenheit degrees.



pbehn said:


> But that is precisely what thermography



Therography performed with a thermographic camera determines the wavelength/frequency of long wave (9000 - 14,000nm) infrared radiation. Through internal computer algorithms colors are assigned giving a visual depiction of the temperature degrees and their distribution within the image. This is possible because the frequency/wavelength of a photon is determined by its energy content. Thus as temperature increases the photons radiated also increase their energy content and have shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies. BUT this simplistic scheme is complicated by the fact that everything "seen" by the IR camera has a temperature thus there are multiple IR sources emitting, transmitting, reflecting, and absorbing. The interpretation of all this data is controlled by the cameras mathematical algorithms.
A further complication is the objects emissivity. Two objects in the cameras view at the same physical temperature may show different different images if they have different emissivity. Objects with a high emissivity will appear hotter than another object with lower emissivity even though both are at the same physical temperature.

In any case my point remains valid. You are NOT directly measuring temperature. You are detecting/measuring photons emitted because of a vibrational/rotational mode of the atom/molecules of an object determined by its temperature (average KE) though no particle of the object may actually be at that KE value


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2018)

Just joshing mike. I used thermography equipment in Saudi Arabia with computer software to review results, it is FFFfffing incredible what it can do, from finding leaks in canals to overheating circuits (+5C higher) and thinning pipes in furnaces, it requires very little expertise to use it, just in interpreting results.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 7, 2018)

But what about dark matter Mike?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2018)

Marcel said:


> But what about dark matter Mike?


It has an emissivity value greater than 0.91.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 7, 2018)

Marcel said:


> But what about dark matter



At the present time along with Dark Energy we have "pie in the sky" theorems attempting to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe and the retention of a galaxy's peripheral suns.
Back in the early 1950s astronomers expected that stars near the center of a galaxy would have to travel faster than stars in the periphery. Just like Mercury has a higher orbital velocity (being nearer the sun) than the Earth whose orbital velocity (nearer the sun than) is higher than Uranus. Instead the observed measured velocities of both were the same. Calculating the total mass of all observable matter in the galaxy at such velocities the peripheral suns should fly off into space since the total mass of the observable matter in the galaxy did not provide sufficient gravitational force to hold them in place.
***N.B.** Gravity is a fictional force like Centrifugal Force but it offers a simple explanation so I'll pretend that it is real and use the term.*
The only explanation in keeping with known physical laws was that the galaxy must contain matter that could not be observed, i.e. DARK Matter meaning that it did not radiate any detectable forms of energy but being matter it did generate a gravitational field. Black Holes themselves also do not radiate BUT at their edges an accretion disk forms which does radiate as matter crosses the event horizon and falls into the hole. To generate sufficient gravitational force to retain the peripheral sun meant that 80% of the galaxies total mass must be dark. More evidence came in in the form of gas movements within elliptical galaxies which again required the presence of much more mass than that observed and the movements of clusters of galaxies which should fly apart if the only mass present was that which could be observed.
Recently about Dragonfly 44 a galaxy as large as the Milky Way was discovered about 300 million LY from Earth. It emits about 1% the amount of light that the Milky Way does and has few observable stars within it that move very quickly. To keep these stars within the galaxy requires a LOT more matter, present belief is that it is 99% Dark Matter.
Now there do exist other possibilities such as very dim brown dwarf stars, neutrino stars. and super massive black holes but presently most feel tat they are not present in sufficient quantity to make up the missing mass.
SO...off to Neverneverland. Dark matter is not composed of regular baryonic (electrons, neutrons, protons) matter but of non-baryonic WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) with 10 to 100 times the mass of a proton. They even have a name: the Neutralino. Neutralinos are slower than, more massive than, a regular neutrino but show the same very weak interaction with regular matter.
**N.B.** Besides baryons (made of Quarks) there are LEPTONS, point particles with no internal structure. The best known is the electron. In addition there is the MUON and the TAU. All three are electrically charged and Symmetry requires 3 non-charged the 3 NEUTRINOS (the elusive neutrino was predicted back in 1931 but wasn't discovered until 1959. Neutrinos come in three flavors the electron-neutrino. the muon-neutrino discovered in 1962, and the tau-neutrino in 2000.) Dark Mater Neutralino fans propose a fourth flavor the Sterile or inert neutrino. The 3 known types oscillate in flavor as they zip along. The Sterile neutrino could only be produced when one of the other flavors morphs into it. Sterile neutrinos have 10 - 100 times the mass of the other 3 and only interact with ordinary matter through gravity hence their involvement in Dark Matter.
All of the above having been said, at the present date NO direct evidence of Dark Matter has ever been found.
More Pie in the Sky....DARK ENERGY
While Dark Matter makes up 80% of the matter in the universe it only makes up 25% of its composition. 75% of the universe is, yup you guessed it....DARK ENERGY.
Again turning to cosmology. After the Big Bang the Universe began expanding. Theory was that eventually gravity would slow the expansion, stop it, and then cause it to collapse and eventually go BANG again. Others theorized a Thermal Death for the universe where the expansion would go slower and slower and slower approaching but never reaching zero. Then starting in the 1990s astronomers studying distant supernovas determined that neither was happening, instead the expansion was accelerating going faster than it had in the past. This could only occur if a force greater than gravity were present driving the expansion faster and faster, i.e. Dark Energy. Modern Theory terms this QUINTESSENCE and ranks it as the Fifth Fundamental Force (Gravity - Electromagnetism - strong nuclear - weak nuclear).
This means that while energy is supposed to have a source either matter or radiation, dead empty space with all matter and radiation removed nonetheless contains a residual energy - QUINTESSENCE which on a cosmic scale results in a force sufficient to drive the accelerating expansion of the universe. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has long since given a way to describe the physics of the large but fails to describe the physics of the small (atom sized). For that we turn to Quantum Mechanics which describes how these small particles behave and interact but fails above the size of an atom. If/when these two theories are reconciled a natural explanation for Dark Energy will emerge.
So as weird as it seems the Universe seems to consist of 4% visible matter - 22% Dark Matter - and 74% Dark Energy. Or simply put we know very little about 96% of our universe


----------



## Airframes (Jan 7, 2018)

Come to the dark side - we have speed.............. BwAHAAHAA !


----------



## Wayne Little (Jan 8, 2018)

It's getting to technical to keep up....


----------



## mikewint (Jan 8, 2018)

Wayne Little said:


> It's getting to technical to keep up....



You ain't even scratched the surface yet. The ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead is a good introduction to Quantum Mechanics where virtual particles come into existence from nowhere and the go out of existence violating all conservation laws BUT it's OK because they do it so quickly the universe does not have time (whatever that is) to notice.
The Universe is not only stranger than you imagine it to be, it is stranger than you CAN imagine


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 8, 2018)

But all we realy want to know is; is there a colour picture of it!


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2018)

Gnomey said:


> But all we realy want to know is; is there a colour picture of it!


Of course there is but it was over exposed.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 8, 2018)

It's a positive negative .....................


----------



## mikewint (Jan 8, 2018)

This is the latest pic I have-


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2018)

Airframes said:


> It's a positive negative .....................


As an English cricket coach frequently said, "I take positives from the negatives".


----------



## Wayne Little (Jan 9, 2018)

That pic seems to show a lot of nothing in particular that we can use .....


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2018)

It's still a good picture of what we are looking for...


----------



## Airframes (Jan 10, 2018)

But the dark isn't moving - maybe dark is very slow after all.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 10, 2018)

Motion can only be defined in terms of a single fixed point and since there does not exist any privileged point ALL motion is RELATIVE.
Standing on the ground the Earth appears to be stationary and the sun moves across the sky. From the suns point of view the Earth revolves around it as it remains stationary. From outside the solar system the entire system is moving around the galactic core at 220 km/s RELATIVE to the core which itself is not stationary.
So are we moving through the dark or is the dark moving past us...tis all relative to your POV (Point of View)


----------



## herman1rg (Jan 10, 2018)

Surely that picture is in the wrong thread?


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jan 10, 2018)

I've been in the dark since the beginning of this thread, and I got there pretty quickly.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 10, 2018)

Trying opening your eyes maybe you'll see a coloured picture...


----------



## Marcel (Jan 11, 2018)

mikewint said:


> Motion can only be defined in terms of a single fixed point and since there does not exist any privileged point ALL motion is RELATIVE.
> Standing on the ground the Earth appears to be stationary and the sun moves across the sky. From the suns point of view the Earth revolves around it as it remains stationary. From outside the solar system the entire system is moving around the galactic core at 220 km/s RELATIVE to the core which itself is not stationary.
> So are we moving through the dark or is the dark moving past us...tis all relative to your POV (Point of View)


And there we finally get to Einstein to solve the puzzle.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jan 12, 2018)

If an object travelling at the speed of dark passes through a black hole, does it come out the other side, providing there is an other side, at the speed of light?

My head hurts!


----------



## mikewint (Jan 12, 2018)

Bucksnort101 said:


> f an object travelling at the speed of dark passes through a black hole, does it come out the other side, providing there is an other side, at the speed of light?


1. Dark is not a physical object therefore cannot have a speed or velocity. Dark is an absence.
2. Passing through is impossible since a black hole is a one way trip once past the event horizon NOTHING exits the hole not even light so there is no other side. Even approaching the hole is a death sentence since the gravitational field would become so intense that tidal forces would rip anything to atoms in a second and then rip apart the atoms themselves.
3. Special relativity demonstrates that in addition to time dilation, shrinkage along the line of flight axis, the object would increase in mass. So approaching the speed of light for any massed object means that more and more energy becomes more and more mass slowing acceleration more and more until you've input an infinite amount of energy and have an infinite mass. No massed object reaches light velocity


----------



## herman1rg (Jan 13, 2018)

Black hole blasts out 'double burp'


----------



## mikewint (Jan 13, 2018)

Being that this is an article written for a "Popular" news outlet is it written in a style seriously lacking in exactitude. As previously posted all black holes are surrounded by ACCRETION disks of matter that are being attracted by the gravitational field of the actual Black Hole. The gravitational force experienced by matter in the accretion disk varies with the square of the distance. At the innermost edge of the accretion disk is the EVENT HORIZON. The event horizon marks that point in space where the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light. Above (away from) the horizon the escape velocity is less than the speed of light and below the horizon the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Thus once past the event horizon NOTHING escapes the black hole. 
Within the accretion disk however escape velocities are less than light speed thus matter and energy can escape. In addition the massive tidal forces near the event horizon are literally tearing matter apart ripping out electrons and tearing protons and neutrons apart as well as causing the matter in the disk to spin around the hole as it spirals into the hole. All of these forces combine to heat the disk and cause it to radiate energy all the way into the gamma-ray band of the EM spectrum.
These so-called "Burps" came NOT from the Hole itself but from the accretion disk surrounding the actual Black Hole


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2018)




----------



## gumbyk (Apr 2, 2018)




----------



## Bucksnort101 (Apr 6, 2018)

mikewint said:


> This is the latest pic I have-
> 
> View attachment 478560


If you look close at this picture you will see it has a model airplane in it. The modeler painted the entire model with a base coat of black, but before he decided on a final finish he decided to come here looking for sources for color pictures, but not getting any, he has not finished painting it yet. Poor fella.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Oct 20, 2021)

Darkness has caught up with this thread. Did we learn anything?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

Yep .. not to light a cigarette on a gas burner top.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Oct 20, 2021)

Dark is not that fast if you think of this.

The *one-electron universe* postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to Feynman:



> I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!"


from wikipedia

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

And all is clear now.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2021)

Wait a minute.............

Dark is clear?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

It looks like .. therefore the another side can be seen.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2021)

Wurger said:


> It looks like .. therefore the another side can be seen.


So in other words, the universe has tinted windows?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

Yes. it does.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 20, 2021)

Isn't that one way glass?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

Possible. But the glass wouldn't be rather. At this speed it would be broken by meteors.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2021)

Wurger said:


> Yep .. not to light a cigarette on a gas burner top.


You're doing it wrong.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> You're doing it wrong.



So what is your favourite and correct way?


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Oct 20, 2021)

Wurger said:


> And all is clear now.



Which raises the obvious question, what is the speed of clear?

I'll say my goodbyes now, just in case I'm not allowed back in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

Bucksnort101 said:


> Which raises the obvious question, what is the speed of clear?



And that's a very good question.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2021)

Wurger said:


> So what is your favourite and correct way?


I’d post you a picture but my wife won’t let me light up in the house.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I’d post you a picture but my wife won’t let me light up in the house.



It's fine. Just asked out of curiosity because I don't smoke. However I know one who does.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2021)

Wurger said:


> So what is your favourite and correct way?


The best way is to hold the cigarette close to the flame (or against the coil, if electric) until it starts smoldering, then it's ready to go (along with a cup of coffee, preferably).
Doing this prevents the loss of facial hair (beards, moustaches, eyebrows) along with one's dignity...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2021)

And that’s how it’s done.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Oct 20, 2021)

In January 2002, the true colour of the Universe was declared as somewhere between pale turquoise and aquamarine, by Ivan Baldry and Karl Glazebrook at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore Maryland.
They determined the cosmic colour by combining light from over 200,000 galaxies within two billion light years of Earth. The data came from the Australian 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey at the Anglo-Australian Observatory in New South Wales, Australia.

But! 
In March 2002,
Glazebrook now says the true colour this data gives is closer to beige. "I'm very embarrassed," he says, "I don't like being wrong."

The mistake was caused by a bug in the software Glazebrook had used to convert the cosmic spectrum into the colour the human eye would see if it was exposed to it. "There's no error in the science, the error was in the perception," says Glazebrook.

Glazebrook has now teamed up with Mark Fairchild of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the University of Rochester in New York, who pointed out his mistake last month.
Fairchild realized the software Glazebrook was using actually took a slightly pinky looking colour as white. "There was a huge green shift due to the erroneous white point," he says.

When this was corrected, the colour was actually on the pinky side of white, a slight beige colour. Fairchild now hopes to test the software model by generating an exact replication of the cosmic spectrum light and shining it into someone's eye, so they can experience the true colour of the Universe. But Glazebrook is confident this time. "It won't change again," he says.


The John Hopkins group were using the cosmic spectrum – not the subjective colour it corresponds to – to trace the history of star formation in the Universe. Their scientific results are not affected by their mistak


Read more: The Universe is not turquoise – it's beige



Read more: The Universe is not turquoise – it's beige

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Oct 20, 2021)

herman1rg said:


> In January 2002, the true colour of the Universe was declared as somewhere between pale turquoise and aquamarine, by Ivan Baldry and Karl Glazebrook at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore Maryland.
> They determined the cosmic colour by combining light from over 200,000 galaxies within two billion light years of Earth. The data came from the Australian 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey at the Anglo-Australian Observatory in New South Wales, Australia.
> 
> But!
> ...


I hope they didn't pay too much/anything for that research!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2021)

herman1rg said:


> In January 2002, the true colour of the Universe was declared as somewhere between pale turquoise and aquamarine, by Ivan Baldry and Karl Glazebrook at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore Maryland.
> They determined the cosmic colour by combining light from over 200,000 galaxies within two billion light years of Earth. The data came from the Australian 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey at the Anglo-Australian Observatory in New South Wales, Australia.
> 
> But!
> ...


As long as it's not plaid...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2021)

The things one learns here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Oct 20, 2021)

It's very probable that the speed of dark is directly related to altitude.
We know the higher one travels, the thinner the air, and it gets darker, therefore, the speed of dark must be much faster at very high altitudes. If we can establish the speed of dark at sea level, we could *maybe* then establish the speed of dark at various altitudes ...................... but I doubt it ....................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> As long as it's not plaid...



If you go down to the Edinburgh High Street you can go into one of the many tartan shops and get your very own McUniverse tartan to prove your Scottish ancestry...

Very industrious the Scots, they invented everything, don't you know...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> If you go down to the Edinburgh High Street you can go into one of the many tartan shops and get your very own McUniverse tartan to prove your Scottish ancestry...
> 
> Very industrious the Scots, they invented everything, don't you know...


As it stands, I am qualified for tartans of Clan MacBean and Clan Stewert.

While that's great and all, I have resisted the temptation to own any

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Oct 21, 2021)

herman1rg said:


> Read more: The Universe is not turquoise – it's beige


Torquoise was great, I don't like beige, prefer Khaki.

🇮🇷

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 22, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> If you go down to the Edinburgh High Street you can go into one of the many tartan shops and get your very own McUniverse tartan to prove your Scottish ancestry...
> 
> Very industrious the Scots, they invented everything, don't you know...


That's very true. For example, copper wire was invented by two scotsmen fighting over a penny.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Oct 22, 2021)

1- Whats the speed of dark?

A) It's good. / B) It's OK. / C) How's your day? / D) You're welcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Oct 23, 2021)

And notice that the speed of dark appears to be faster in winter, as it gets darker earlier ......................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Creative Creative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 24, 2021)

Airframes said:


> And notice that the speed of dark appears to be faster in winter, as it gets darker earlier ......................


Or is it that the speed of light is slower cause it's colder ?

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## newst (Oct 25, 2021)

Dark has no speed, as it never moves. It is omnipresent, encompassing the universe. The idea that darkness moves in when the light is removed is simply an optical illusion. When there is light it simply masks the omnipresent darkness, but it is still there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fascinated (Oct 26, 2021)

The universe is created from light and darkness (the darkness gives the light form). Total darkness is indistinguishible from total light.

BTW, for some fun: (Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2021)

newst said:


> Dark has no speed, as it never moves. It is omnipresent, encompassing the universe. The idea that darkness moves in when the light is removed is simply an optical illusion. When there is light it simply masks the omnipresent darkness, but it is still there.


Dunno - after a long bout of bending the elbow at the corner pub, a series of events takes place.
First, gravity kicks in.
Then there's the tremendous flash of light as the face-plant occurs (a result of gravity, of course).
Then darkness rushes in, obliterating everything...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 26, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> That's very true. For example, copper wire was invented by two scotsmen fighting over a penny.



How d'you make a Scotsman walk straight? Put a chip on his other shoulder...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Oct 27, 2021)

herman1rg said:


> In January 2002, the true colour of the Universe was declared as somewhere between pale turquoise and aquamarine, by Ivan Baldry and Karl Glazebrook at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore Maryland.
> They determined the cosmic colour by combining light from over 200,000 galaxies within two billion light years of Earth. The data came from the Australian 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey at the Anglo-Australian Observatory in New South Wales, Australia.
> 
> But!
> ...





Bucksnort101 said:


> I hope they didn't pay too much/anything for that research!


If the government was involved, it had major cost overruns.


----------

