27 new of 28 responses total.
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*."
You have several choices: