DARK CONSPIRACY INVOLVING ELECTRICAL POWER COMPANIES SURFACES

                Rewritten by the Quantum Mechanic
                         (Author Unknown)

For years the electrical utility companies have led the public to believe
they were in business to supply electricity to the consumer, a service for
which they charge a substantial rate.  The recent accidental acquisition
of secret records from a well known power company has led to a massive
research campaign which positively explodes several myths and exposes the
massive hoax which has been perpetrated upon the public by the power
companies. 

The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs emitted
light;  in actuality, these 'light' bulbs actually absorb DARK which is
then transported back to the power generation stations via wire networks. 
A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new scientific name for
the device is DARKSUCKER. 
 
This newsletter introduces a brief synopsis of the darksucker theory,
which proves the existence of dark and establishes the fact that dark has
great mass, and further, that dark particle (the anti-photon) is the
fastest known particle in the universe.  Apparently, even the celebrated
Dr. Albert Einstein did not suspect the truth.. that just as COLD is the
absence of HEAT, LIGHT is actually the ABSENCE of DARK...  scientists have
now proven that light does not really exist! 

The basis of the darksucker theory is that electric light bulbs suck dark. 
Take for example, the darksuckers in the room where you are right now. 
There is much less dark right next to the darksuckers than there is
elsewhere, demonstrating their limited range.  The larger the darksucker,
the greater its capacity to suck dark.  Darksuckers in a parking lot or on
a football field have a much greater capacity than the ones in used in the
home, for example. 

It may come as a surprise to learn that darksuckers also operate on a
celestial scale; witness the Sun.  Our Sun makes use of dense dark,
sucking it in from all the planets and intervening dark space.  Naturally,
the Sun is better able to suck dark from the planets which are situated
closer to it, thus explaining why those planets appear brighter than do
those which are far distant from the Sun. 

Occasionally, the Sun actually oversucks;  under those conditions, dark
spots appear on the surface of the Sun.  Scientists have long studied
these 'sunspots' and are only recently beginning to realize that the dark
spots represent leaks of high pressure dark because the Sun has oversucked
dark to such an extent that some dark actually leaks back into space. 
This leakage of high pressure dark frequently causes problems with radio
communications here on Earth due to collisions between the dark particles
as they stream out into space at high velocity via the black 'holes' in
the surface of the Sun. 

As with all manmade devices, darksuckers have a finite lifetime caused by
the fact that they are not 100% efficient at transmitting collected dark
back to the power company via the wires from your home, causing dark to
build up slowly within the device.  Once they are full of accumulated
dark, they can no longer suck.  This condition can be observed by looking
for the black spot on a full darksucker when it has reached maximum
capacity of untransmitted dark... you have surely noticed that dark
completely surrounds a full darksucker because it no longer has the
capacity to suck any dark at all. 

A candle is a primitive darksucker.  A 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 way of the dark flowing into the candle.  It is of no use to plug a
candle into an electrical outlet;  it can only collect dark.. it has no
transmission capabilities.  Unfortunately, these primitive darksuckers
have a very limited range and are hazardous to operate because of the
intense heat produced. 
 
There are also portable darksuckers called flashlights.  The bulbs in
these devices collect dark which is passed to a dark storage unit called a
battery.  When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied (a
process called 'recharging') or replaced before the portable darksucker
can continue to operate.  If you break open a battery, you will find dense
black dark inside, evidence that it is actually a compact dark storage
unit. 
 
The darksuckers on your automobile are high capacity units with great
range, thus they require much larger dark storage units mounted under the
hood of the vehicle.  Since there is far more dark available in the winter
season, automobile dark storage units reach capacity more frequently than
they do in the summer, requiring 'recharging', or in severe cases, total
replacement. 

Dark has great mass.  When dark is drawn into a darksucker, friction
caused by the speed and mass of the dark particles (called anti-photons)
actually generates substantial heat, thus it is unwise to touch an
operating dark sucker.  Candles represent a special problem, as the dark
must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass.  This
generates a great amount of heat, making it very dangerous to touch an
operating candle. 
 
Because dark has such great mass, it is very heavy.  If you swim just
below the surface of a lake, you see a lot of 'light' (absence of dark, to
be more precise).  As you go deeper and deeper beneath the surface, you
will notice that it gets 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, making it appear 'lighter'
near the surface. 

The power companies have learned to use the dark which has settled to the
bottom of lakes and rivers by pushing it through turbines, which generates
the electricity used to pump the dark toward the ocean where it may be
safely stored for their devious purposes. 
 
Prior to the development of turbines, it was much more difficult to get
the dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean.  The Indians recognized
this problem, and developed means to assist the flow of dark on it's long
journey to the ocean.  When on a river in a canoe traveling in the same
direction as the flow of dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to impede
the flow of dark; but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they
paddled vigorously to help propel the dark along its way. 

Scientists are working feverishly to develop exotic new instrumentation
with which to measure the actual speed and energy level of dark.  While
such instrumentation is beyond the capabilities of the average layman, you
can actually perform a test to demonstrate the unbelievable speed of dark,
right in your own home. 
 
All that is required for the simple test is a closed desk drawer situated
in a bright room.  You know from past experience that the tightly shut
drawer is FULL of dark.  Now, place your hand firmly on the drawer's
handle.  Quickly yank the drawer open.. the dark immediately disappears,
demonstrating the blinding speed with which the dark travels to the
nearest darksucker! 

The secrets of dark are at present known only to the power companies. 
Dark must be very valuable, since they go to such lengths to collect it in
vast quantities.  By some well hidden method, more modern power
'generation' facilities have devised methods to hide their collection of
dark.  The older facilities, however, usually have gargantuan piles of
solidified dark in huge fenced in areas.  Visitors to these facilities are
told that the huge black piles of material are supplies of coal, but such
is not the case. 

The power companies have long used secret acronyms to disguise their
activities;  'D.C.' stands for 'Dark Conspiracy', while 'A.C.' is
suspected to represent the 'Alternate Conspiracy' which will most likely
be used exclusively once the secrets of D.C. are totally understood.  D.C. 
is rapidly yielding it's secrets to the probing eyes and instruments of
honest scientists around the world.  The U.S. Attorney General is
considering action to be taken against the power companies for the theft
and stockpiling of dark from 'consumers'.  New developments are being
announced every day and we promise to keep the public informed of these
announcements as they occur via this newsletter.

Les Dark, Editor

28 responses total.

 _____
 Light

I think this beongs in the 
I think this belongs in the Annals of Improbable Research.

If you set aside everything you know about physics...what are the
*logical* fallacies in Dark hypothesis?

Why does the "sucking" not work through, e.g. light sheet metal?
Why does the "sucking", though removing dark, carry energy?
The logical difficulties are much like those of the phlogiston theory.

Other idle thoughts....

Why does a "dark-sucker" exposed to a surface through a
prism or diffraction grating remove "dark" at different
colors in different regions of the surface?

Why does the "sucking" effect reflect, if the influence
is over "dark" radiated by other objects?

Obviously, more research is required. However, some of your queries have
simple answers. 

Note that a darksucker *does* suck dark from the surface of light sheet
metal, but the sucking cannot penetrate it. 

Dark not only has great mass, but great energy, as shown by e=md^2, where
d is the speed of dark. 

Dark refracts in transparent substances to a degree that depends upon the
wavelength of the dark, explaining the action of prisms. You must realize
that what you *see* results from dark being lifted from your eyes, and the
color of what's left depends on which wavelenths of dark have been
removed. 

It is obvious that a darksucker reaches across space to suck dark. The
medium that conveys sucking through space has not yet been identified, but
clearly sucking can be reflected by some surfaces. You are in error that
objects *radiate* dark - they don't. Dark is *sucked* from them. 

I hope these explanations leave you in the dark. 

The explanation is too complex.  The influence of the "darksucker" must
travel in rays, with the "dark" being removed back to the "darksucker".
The "dark" must travel *back* along the same rays, otherwise it would
darken objects elsewhere, an effect which is not observed.  There is
nothing in the model which explains this behavior, so it is faulty.

Also, dark must have negative energy, as removal of dark from an
object adds energy to it.  This contradicts #0.  Another fault in
the model, also akin to the mass paradox of the phlogiston theory.

The model does not have to contain explanations for its fundamental
postulates. For example, the inflationary model of the universe contains
no explanation for the Big Bang. We are trying to account for observations
and the fact that we do not have an explanation for the sucking "rays"
(your term), does not lessen the ability of the hypothesis to explain the
observations. 

You may have made an important discovery - that dark has *negative* energy.

The Big Bang theory has explanatory power that the dark theory does
not.  We had no way to explain the cosmic background radiation and the
Hubble redshift without the Big Bang.  We don't need a theory beyond
quantum mechanics to explain light and light bulbs.

We aren't talking about Big Bang theory - we are taking about Dark theory. 
My point that inflationary theory does not *explain* the Big Bang is an
analogy to counter your assertion that Dark theory must contain an
explanation of its fundamental causes. We were also not talking about
quantum mechanics and explanations for light, etc. That is an alternative
theory, which you are free to argue as a better alternative to Dark
theory. Go to it. Incidentally, astronomers didn't *need* a better theory
than Ptolemy's for a very long time - your argument presumes there are no
faults in quantum mechanics. Einstein would have differed with you, as
would modern physicists. For that matter, quantum mechanics also lacks
explanations for its fundamental postulates. 

No, you are wrong.  The Dark theory must have some explanation of what
dark is, and why it behaves as it does.  Where this explanation is
present or inferred, it is contradictory.

When you say Ptolemy's theory, do you mean epicycles?

No, you are wrong. Darkists have no obligation to you, and don't have to
explain anything except what they purport to explain. You have to show
that their theory is inherently contradictory. Yes, epicycles. No
scientific theory has *ever* been able to explain everything. Those that
have fallen have been contradicted in some fashion. All your objections to
Dark theory have been answered. You still need to find a proof of error.

Sorry.  If the "Dark theory" is put forth as a scientific theory,
then it has to be testable; in other words, it must make testable
predictions about phenomena which ought to be observed, and thus
why they occur (a scientific theory is a model).  I've already
noted the contradiction in the energy value for the stuff called
"dark".  What is worse is the number of phenomena which are
observed, yet the Dark theory cannot account for.  The model is
woefully incomplete (can't test a non-prediction).

I'm getting annoyed with both your hand-waving and the lack of
other participation in this item.  If you want to put forth Dark
as an example of a non-scientific theory, fine, but it doesn't
hold any interest for me.

Well, I'm not putting a lot of thought into Dark theory, nor does my
professional reputation depend upon advancing or defending. After 
all, this is the PSEUDO item. I'm sorry you are annoyed, but thank you
for going along with the joke this far. I do have the impression, however,
that it holds *some* interest for you, or you would not have played along
this far. I think some of the issues we both raised are fundamental ones
to scientific principles. Just as I said that there was no need to
*explain* the process of dark sucking rays, Newton did not find it necessary
to *explain* gravity. It isn't explained to this day (experiments are still
being designed in the hope of detecting gravity quanta). The real challenge
in the Dark theory is to pose it so it is unassailable by any means. I
am still struggling with your energy argument as I myself freely assume
the (approximate) validity of the three laws of thermodynamics in all
arguments, and I'm afraid that dark theory doesn't stand up too well to
scrutiny by all three.

The influence of a force which acts like gravity is a fact.  The existence
of a substance "dark" is not (it isn't conserved, for one thing).

If your only goal is to make an unassailable theory, you're heading into
the realm of theology.  Scientific theories are by definition testable,
which an unassailable thesis is not.  And every joke gets old.

Gee, Russ, you're a lot of fun.  ;)

I'm just about certain that dark suckers appeared on the humor
item a couple of years ago. Of course they didn't have the crap analyzed out
of them at the time, and people just laughed and moved on.

then again, it is not a very analytical item.

I have trouble figuring out what parts of modern scientific knowledge 
needs to be thrown out before "dark" can be taken seriously. it seems 
like an awful lot.

I first saw the darksucker article in the caving literature. There, the normal
conditon is dark, so the (silly) idea had a lot of resonance with a group
always contending with dark. The devices we use for sucking dark are also very
important to us, and we spend a lot of time considering improved
"darksuckers". People that consider "light" normal do not have the same
response to the subject as those that consider "dark" normal.

During the past week I visited The Koreshan Unity Settlement in Estero,
about 15 miles south of Ft. Myers, FL. This was a "utopian" community
founded by one Dr.  Cyrus Teed (MD from New York Eclectic Medical College) 
in 1869. The community grew in Chicago and in 1894 bought land in Estero
and moved there with 200 followers with designs to build a "New Jerusalem"
with a projected population of 10 millions. The community followed the
"religion" of Koreshanity (invented by Teed), was celibate, and encouraged
education, music, the arts, theatre, and study of "HIgher Mathematics from
the Koreshan standpoint". Of particular interest here, though, is Koreshan
Cosmogeny.

In 1870 Teed had published the book _The Cellular Cosmogony_, which
revealed that the entire cosmos is like an egg. We live on the inner
surface of the shell, and inside the hollow are the sun, moon, stars,
planets, and comets. Outside is *absolutely nothing*. The shell is 100
miles thick and made of 17 layers of rock, minerals, and metal. The sun at
the center of the open space is invisible, but a reflection of it is seen
as our sun. The central sun is half lit and half dark and its rotation
causes the illusion of sun rise and set. The moon is a reflection of the
earth, and the planets are reflections of "mercurial discs floating
between the laminae of the metallic planes". There is lots more.... 

Hollow earth cosmogony is much older. It was proposed in 1632 by Edmund
Halley (of Halley's comet); supported in 1721 by Cotton Mather; and
brought to great heights following 1812 by John Symmes, and one Marshall
Gardner published a book suppoorting the theory in 1913 (_Journey to the
Earth's Interior_). [I lifted these supplementary facts from _Fads and
Fallacies in the Name of Science_, by Martin Gardner but back to Koreshan
Cosmogony.]

Teed set out to prove his theory by having built three wood
"rectilineators", which are like double T-squares, about 10 feet long,
with 3 foot arms at the ends, with finally machined brass mating surfaces
at the ends of the Ts. The device was also braced with diagonal brass
rods. Presumably, when they were built, the two ends were adjusted into
"exact"  perpendicularity to the main beam, and "exactly" parallel. The
three "rectilineators" were supported horizontally with two stands each,
and then that at one end was moved to the other end and "mated" therre.
This was repeated for *four miles* along the beach and - SURE ENOUGH - -
the line got closer to the ground as it proceeded, proving that the earth
was concave. 

One rectilineator survives and is exhibited in the Arts building, along
with a model of the hollow earth and paintings of the proposed New
Jeruselum. Teed died in 1908 and his followers mounted a watch, to wait
for his promised resurrection, but the city health officer made them bury
him after three days. The community rather fell apart after Teed's death,
but followers lived there until the last one died in 1987, and the land
was deeded to the State of Florida as the "Koreshan State Historic Site".

Visitors can walk the grounds and see the remaining housing, machine
shops, Arts building, etc, guided by a brochure. The history is just told,
without any commentary on the place of this community in the long history
of similar Utopian communities, or its place in the history of pseudo
science. I watched other visitors and wondered how many came away being
convinced the earth *is* hollow. 

I wonder why this olde item suddenly appeared on my screen.

I wonder what #20 means.

"Have you ever wondered how to unify physics?

       "Using The-Speed-of-Light-Definition-of-Time,
       elementary particles can be described as spherical,
       standing waves of electromagnetic energy--or as Balls
       of Light. The Grand Unifying Equation is:Electric field
       crosss Magnetic field equals the Gravitational field.
       [This relationship is similar to: a well-known physics
       equation called the "Poynting Vector"; and to a theory
       developed around 1900 called "electromagnetic mass".)
       With the proper constant, the equation: Electric Force
       cross Magnetic Force (integrated over the surface of a
       sphere) gives a result of mass. (This constant is not yet
       named, but it would effectively replace what is known
       as the Gravitational Force Constant, "G") This unifying
       equation can be used to derive well-known laws of
       physics, such as: E = mc^2 and F = ma. The Ball of
       Light Particle Model replaces General Relativity and is
       at the same time a quantum model." ...John T. Nordberg

For more, see http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejtnordberg/

"If Earth stood still, it would have mid-day, mid-night,
       sun-up and sun-down as 4 corners. Each rotation of
       earth has 4 mid-days, 4 mid-nights, 4 sun-ups and 4
       sun-downs.

       The sixteen(16) space times demonstrates cube proof of
       4 full days simultaneously on earth within one (1)
       rotation. The academia created 1 day greenwich time is
       bastardly queer and dooms future youth and nature to a
       hell.

       Ignorance of 4 day harmonic cubic nature indicts
       humans as unfit to live on earth. 

       Gene Ray, Cubic 

For more, see http://www.timecube.com/

Beyond me.  (Much is..)  How can four arbitrary lines on an almost
-sphere (earth) be considered corners?  Since rotation is a linear
function, much less a four state digital one, how can it have four
mid-days, mid-nights, etc?  Being linear I think it would have
infinite "corners".  How does the assignment of 1 day Greenwich
time doom future youth and nature to hell?
 
I must not be in a Cubic state of mind.

He'll give you $1,000 if you prove him wrong.

I don't even understand what he's saying.  I couldn't prove him wrong
OR right ;-)

Disproving that would be like disproving astrology. Who gets to decide 
if anything has been disproven, I don't wonder? What bunk!

Nordberg's claim (resp:22) at least *sounds* scientific. The 
dimensionality claim (mass) on his constant for gravitation sounds 
unusual. I would like to see his algebra. Unfortunately, the earthlink 
site is down at the moment, so I can't read any more details. A Grand 
unifying theory of physics, encompassing quantum behavior, relativity, 
and gravitation, is a holy grail of sorts for physicists. 

This reminds me of Monty Python when they claim to be seeking the grail, 
and the French guy in the castle says, they already have it.  :-)

This reminds me of a remark once made about some pseudo-scientific
rubbish:  "This isn't right.  It's not even *wrong*."

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss