The cosmic powers over this present darkness.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I'll to speak shortly, because I doubt anyone here will understand.

Your main problem being, aside from the ill manners of course and a superiority complex, that the concept of "aether" has been largely abandoned by modern physics, as it has been shown to be unnecessary to explain physical phenomena.

This is pretty much down to the lack of observable effects, contradiction with established physics, inconsistency with experimental data and lack of empirical evidence.

According to relativity, the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference, and the laws of physics are the same in all frames. This theory has been extensively tested and has consistently been shown to accurately describe the behavior of light and other phenomena in the absence of aether.

en.wikipedia.org... Morley Experiment
en.wikipedia.org... Fizeau Experiment
en.wikipedia.org... Noble Experiment

I still agree with the Bible though, the light shines into the darkness, not that the existence of darkness depends on the amount of light.

a reply to: Untun

Darkness exists as the absence or lack of light Untun.

When there is no light, we perceive darkness.

But again darkness has no direct physical source.

If the question needs an answer all the same then it's possibly worth considering there is a lot more darkness than light in this Universe.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Untun

Darkness exists as the absence or lack of light Untun.

When there is no light, we perceive darkness.

But again darkness has no direct physical source.

I see where that's coming from.

a reply to: Untun

It's an interesting conundrum through from both scientific and philosophical perspectives.

a reply to: andy06shake

I see no point at all in that statement.

a reply to: Untun

The point being It highlights some similarities between science and philosophy.

Like for instance the fact that both ideologies require critical thinking and conclusions derived from built-up premises.

They are also continually evolving fields with new discoveries and insights leading to revisions and updates of existing theories and ideas.

Not that there are not several key differences between science and philosophy but they both ask and seek to answer questions.

The main difference between the two is methodology aka science deals with empirical data that can be observed, measured, and tested.

Whereas philosophy deals with non-empirical information like ethics, morality, and consciousness, that cannot be directly observed or measured.

a reply to: andy06shake

I see that's what it needs. You did a good job. I'm very happy with that. It's always nice to see some experience. You'll make it.