It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The speed of Darkness

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nyte Angel
If we can measure kelvin which is -, then how can we not measure darkness. Each one exists just as much as the other one does.


I think you misunderstand what kelvin means? Kelvin is not minus anything...

0 K (zero kelvin) is absolute zero, or −273.15 °C (−459.67 °F), which is the real 0. Will the real zero stand up? Absolute zero, the lowest temperature possible, a total lack of heat energy. Anything over absolute zero (0 K) is heat...

So once again there is no such physical energy called 'darkness', just as there is no 'cold'. Only light and heat...




posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Sorry...but no, Anok has it here.

0 degrees Celsius doesn't mean anything except for the temperature at which water freezes/melts. There's still heat (temperature) at 0 degrees Celsius, which is why it can be -5. 0 Kelvin is absolute zero, or -273.15 Celsius.

You cannot have negative Kelvin.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I must say I don't know much about Physics but I'm quite interested on, at least, try to understand the major paradoxes.

So, I was reading my morning scientific journals (I have to keep up to date because of my research project) and I found something very relevant for this particular discussion.

It has just came out on "Nature Photonics".

With the title "Slow light: Anderson localization of slow light" it looked promising.

The abstract of this article is:
"Chains of coupled resonators are capable of dramatically slowing the speed of light. When all the resonators are identical light can, in principle, be stopped altogether. However, disorder causes light to move at a finite speed and to be localized over a few resonators.".

Now, if we can slow down light are we actually increasing the speed of darkness?

Also, is this by any chance a way of slowing down time? [considering time as an absolute mesure unit - although it's not].

[edit on 02/11/2008 by novrod]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I'm not qualified to comment, but I'm going to, anyway.

Time is something many people have done thought experiments on for at least a century and I joined the ranks of the uninformed enthusiasts about 20-odd years ago. Light, to me, is only visible because of the existence of time, but I'm not sure I can conceive of a circumstance whereby affecting light can affect time. I imagine an analogy would be attempting to stop a car by supergluing the needle to zero on the speedometer.

Slow light, though? Doesn't that make it a radio wave or something? If it's slowed down enough, wouldn't we start to hear it?

Just a thought - or two ...



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
In a matter of fact some scientists do consider light as a wave.

If light speed can actually be manipulated I cannot tell... I believe "nobody" can, or they're not willing to right now.

However, when I've combined the concepts of light speed and time it was just a figure of speech nevertheless nobody can say the idea is completely wrong.

It is also postulated light can be affected by gravity fields therefore I think light/photon can still be considered an exotic particle. We have no idea of it's absolute behavior.

What we do know is that light can be accelerated , decelerated or bended.

I wouldn't be surprised if the photon could actually be subdivided into two particles. A true light particle, "veraphoton", and a time particle, the "timetron" however... how could we detect/measure a time particle


If we could define time as a quantum particle, maybe we could influence the "timetrons" just as we do with electrons.

It's nice to talk about subjects we really have almost no idea about . Thanks for this nice discussion.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyte Angel
 


Kelvin is just an arbitrary measuring system like Celsius or Fahrenheit. It is the one preferred by chemists etc. because zero is really absolute zero there are no negative kelvin temps.

Like the inches or cm, it's just a man made scale.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Ok I'm stretching here... Time isn't really a thing a either. Right? Isn't it a completely man made concept used to measure how many times the earth rotates around the sun etc. I mean you can't save time in a bottle (ba doop ching).... It's an arbitrary measuring stick is it not?

Hmmm Einstein says time is the 4th dimension. Drawing on evidence from the Oxford English Corpus, the word time comes top in the list of commonest nouns in the English language, with year (3rd), day (5th) and week (17th) not far behind. So it's a noun, but how do I get it in a bottle.

I'd like a bottle of entropy as well.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Time incredibly useful in relativity. Relativity would be impossible without the concept of time, more specifically a non universal time, how else would you explain objects completing journeys in different amounts of time depending where they were obseved from. A photon could potentially have a half-life, a very short one, thankfully its travelling at the speed of light so from the view of the photon, time is travelling incredible slow, actually its stopped, and it travels around the world infintely fast from its point of view(because time is travelling infinitely fast around it) thus it is able to travel from one end of the universe to the other, in no time(according to itself) although to us it might take billions of years.
[edit on 11-2-2008 by quiksilver]

[edit on 11-2-2008 by quiksilver]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKThat passage just means there was no light, it doesn't mean the darkness was physical.



Some would disagree with you. Here in the midwest...well, nevermind


In the beginning space was nonionized, so it was not transparent to light until after the first billion years. That region still exists, out there there are no stars...


Dark matter is not related to photon absence. One example of dark matter is neutrinos. Dark energy is the accelerated reflection of light.

It was real tempting to wax clownish, but I have refrained for another day..



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Dark matter is not related to photon absence. One example of dark matter is neutrinos. Dark energy is the accelerated reflection of light...


I think we've already established in this thread that 'darkness', as in the absence of light, has nothing to do with 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'.

Btw 'dark energy' is just a hypothetical energy. It's just an assumption to explain the universe expanding at an accelerating rate. No one really knows if it actually exists, or why we can't see it. Same thing with 'dark matter' it's just a hypothetical explanation. They're only called 'dark' because we can't see them. Neither have anything to do with the discussion in this thread which is 'The speed of darkness'...Which btw does not exist.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKThey're only called 'dark' because we can't see them.


Like 'M Theory' for mystery...

Sorry, missed that part where you already made those distinctions, I just posted straight from the quote! Always had trouble in school because of that ADHD...


So everyone is on the same page, that the speed of darkness belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
You are all thinking laterally… although you all make good points and at first glance I would have said that the speed of darkness would have to equal the speed of light because it takes the lack of light to create darkness, but thinking a little deeper I came to this conclusion!

First of all light is made up of by particles and therefore bound by the speed of those particles, as of right now we think of darkness as being lack of all particles light or otherwise and therefore would not be bound by the same laws as the particles that make up light, so in my opinion darkness truly could travel distance faster than that of light!

Second, one would assume that it takes lack of light to create darkness, but what if light didn’t exist at all? Light was created, darkness has always existed! So before light there was still darkness and it couldn’t be defined by lack of light, if there was no such think as light! So if there is another layer between light and darkness or perhaps on the other side of darkness than darkness would have to have a speed at which it can travel! (think about air and water, simply looking at it one would assume without further study that you have air and water, but if you look closer there are gasses that our lighter than air and the water at the bottom of the ocean is thicker (heavier) than the water at the top! Is it possible that with out light there are different “thicknesses” or layers to darkness and if so they must travel!

Third, we are now discovering and proving the existence of dark matter and dark energy that do back up my theory! Although at first glance our solar systems are made up mostly of “nothing” aka “darkness” upon further inspection we realize they actually are made up of something, we just don’t know what that something is? So in that case “darkness” does have mass, it is just a type of mass we have yet to discover how to measure and therefore MUST have a speed at which it travels!

Thank You



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Matyas
Dark matter is not related to photon absence. One example of dark matter is neutrinos. Dark energy is the accelerated reflection of light...


I think we've already established in this thread that 'darkness', as in the absence of light, has nothing to do with 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'.

Btw 'dark energy' is just a hypothetical energy. It's just an assumption to explain the universe expanding at an accelerating rate. No one really knows if it actually exists, or why we can't see it. Same thing with 'dark matter' it's just a hypothetical explanation. They're only called 'dark' because we can't see them. Neither have anything to do with the discussion in this thread which is 'The speed of darkness'...Which btw does not exist.


I too went back and saw this after I made my reply, but I COULDN'T disagree with you more! First of all, there is far more evidence to prove the existence of "dark matter" than there is to prove it's lack of existence! Second this is a debate that is based on personal theory, and quite honestly you can't just say that we are not aloud to use a very popular and in my opinion very applicable theory to help back up our own theory!

You are thinking about darkness the way you were raised to think about darkness, in order to come up with new theories correct or not, you have to start thinking outside the box! Who says that dark matter (given its name because we can't see it) couldn't have something to do with the speed at which dark travels! Once again, think of darkness as existing without the use of the word light, because once again, darkness existed BEFORE light! and therefore the only way to measure the distance and therefor speed of dark matter, if it exists would be by measureing the speed which it travles through the darkness that surrounds it... So if you agree that right now darkness travels at the same speed as light, you would have to agree that if light didn't exist and dark matter did, darkness (if still seperate from dark matter) would travel at the same speed as dark matter and if dark matter travels at a different speed than light, then the speed of darkness is variable, therefore having a speed of it's own that can only be measured right now by that which surrounds it!

Before you try and correct me, find a way to do it with out describing darkness as a lack of light, and learn to accept the fact that dark matter and dark energy are more than just a what if! They potentially could be another form of mass that we cannot measure, they potentially could be the explaination to that which makes up the very nothingness that holds out solar systems and galaxies together! They are far more than a hypothetical explaination to what isn't there, scientists all over the world are trying to prove that they in fact are something, something that has energy and mass! Perhaps even more energy than that of an atam! There is far more proof than you may realize!!! And if you keep an open mind, it may be that missing piece of evidence that solves this debate without question!

Who knows, not me and evidently not you, but hey... that's why we call it a theory!
thanks for playin!



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sparda4355
 


No, I'm sorry.
Stop yelling.

"Darkness" does not travel. "Darkness" is only the absence of light. That is, the absence of photons.

Dark matter has nothing to do with that or "darkness." I don't think you know what dark matter really is.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nyte Angel

Yes there is,

It's called not being Christian, Catholic, etc...

Death is God's darkness. There is no escaping that.

Watch Zeitgeist bud, it'll make you see things clearer than thinking 'God is light'.

NO OFFENSE TO ANY CHRISTIANS, CATHOLICS, ETC!

[edit on 9-2-2008 by Nyte Angel]



I am not a Christian.

There is no situation where there is total absence of light as is being suggested.

Light exist outside of time and is everywhere in the present past and future, or at one time

I do believe in a creator God, death is not His darkness in my opinion.

Death is not darkness in the sense you have suggested, it is the absence of the light of life but not of light itself.

It may also be possible to escape death with the help of God.

God is light and there is no possibility of the absence of God our beliefs do not effect that reality so I don't see the reason for bringing up religion.

If darkness exists in a real sense as light does, then you would need to determine in what situation it resides to make a guess at it's speed.

If you will allow yourself to presume God exists rather than presuming He does not then you can make much better speculations.

It is just as easy to say God is real and make projections as it is to assume He is not, and it should not be an issue of belief but of assumptions

Assuming God exist is not believing He exist and the best science usually begins with that assumption.

.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by newday]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by newday

Originally posted by Nyte Angel
Death is God's darkness.

Light exist outside of time and is everywhere in the present past and future, or at one time


Let's not get metaphysics mixed into this. There is metaphysical darkness, then there is physical darkness, which is an absence of energy (eg. light). We are discussing the physics.

For me, my worldview is twain for clarity. First you have the phenomenal world, what we are meant to be discussing here in an objective manner. Then there is the numenal world, accessed only through the subjective. That is the world of metaphysics, and exhibits none of the properties of the phenomenal world, even if it is a superset.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by newday


I am not a Christian.

There is no situation where there is total absence of light as is being suggested.

Light exist outside of time and is everywhere in the present past and future, or at one time


[edit on 12-2-2008 by newday]


DUDE... Darkness existed before there was light, that is total darkness! I don't care who you are or what you believe in, there was a point in time before the big bang, or before god snapped his metophysical fingers and created light!

Plus you can theoretically travel beyond the reach of light into the vast emptyness that is outside our cosmos and eventually you would have to reach a point at which light particles didn't exist, again creating total darkness!



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by sparda4355
 


No, I'm sorry.
Stop yelling.

"Darkness" does not travel. "Darkness" is only the absence of light. That is, the absence of photons.

Dark matter has nothing to do with that or "darkness." I don't think you know what dark matter really is.


uh... are you serious?

How… through the use of well structured sentences that in my opinion validated my point, give you the impression that I was yelling? I apologize, and I will turn down the volume on my keyboard, but my point still stands… You and nobody else until we fully understand and can prove whether dark matter does or does not exist can say if it has anything to do with the speed at which darkness travels.. First of all, as of right now the only correct answer would be that it doesn’t move, it is only created by eliminating light, but if you attempt to think outside the box into a less lateral and more complex thought process, one might realize that there could be more than meets the eye! Remember, at one point it was common believe that the world was flat!



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

You and nobody else until we fully understand and can prove whether dark matter does or does not exist can say if it has anything to do with the speed at which darkness travels.


Oh, I see, we're talking about the speed of dark matter. It's 30 MPH in a built-up area. This was proved in experiments done at Area 52.3, where I once worked as dog-handler for the security division (X-Sec A/12 - check it, it has its own website).The speed of dark is the same as the speed of light, only it's going away from you, according to Dr Sargoin, the Reticulan elf.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by sparda4355
Remember, at one point it was common believe that the world was flat!


Common misapprehension. Most people had no thoughts whatsoever about the shape of the planet - in fact, they didn't think in terms of planets - while sailors and scientists were thoroughly aware of the roundness of the world. What they weren't too certain about was the distance round the circumferance.

Makes sense if you think of it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join