SaigoNoAkuma Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 It started out with a simple theory on the speed of light, and I stumbled upon a theory on how a Star dies and creates "black holes". I don't know if I should share though. Also, if i do share it, i'm going to my Science 20 teacher before hand to see if this is feasible.
baric Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 It started out with a simple theory on the speed of light, and I stumbled upon a theory on how a Star dies and creates "black holes". Does it involve gravity and neutron degeneracy pressure? If so, someone has already beaten you to it. Sorry!
SaigoNoAkuma Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Does it involve gravity and neutron degeneracy pressure? If so, someone has already beaten you to it. Sorry! Nope, it involves a particle faster than the speed of light, a particle that is infinitely times faster than light That's all i'm gonna say, for now. Oh, and light doesn't exist. There's a mind boggling theory Just a theory disproving everything science has taught me thus far. Edited October 25, 2011 by SaigoNoAkuma
baric Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 Nope, it involves a particle faster than the speed of light, a particle that is infinitely times faster than light That's all i'm gonna say, for now. Oh, and light doesn't exist. There's a mind boggling theory Just a theory disproving everything science has taught me thus far. Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?
SaigoNoAkuma Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Scientific discoveries are all produced by people who were shunned apon because they were wrong. So, anything is possible. Every heard about a Darkon? /troll face/
Phi for All Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 Just a theory disproving everything science has taught me thus far. Irony. I get it. 1
SaigoNoAkuma Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Light does not exist, apart from darkness; light is merely the absence of darkness. For example, the sun does not produce light, but, rather, has an attractional force that draws in particles of darkness, called "darkons''. When the earth turns toward the sun, the darkons are drawn away, leaving behind light, except in areas where the darkon field is obstructed by trees, buildings, or the like. The areas in which the darkon field is obstructed are known as "shadows''
baric Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 Scientific discoveries are all produced by people who were shunned apon because they were wrong. So, anything is possible. Every heard about a Darkon? /troll face/ What is your background in physics? This is important because remember that all existing scientific theories regarding light have accumulated decades of experimental confirmation. Any theory that you claim to upend established scientific theories will need to explain the results of those experiments. As a result, it's a good idea to have an idea of these mountains of evidence you are attempting to overturn. Light does not exist, apart from darkness; light is merely the absence of darkness. For example, the sun does not produce light, but, rather, has an attractional force that draws in particles of darkness, called "darkons''. When the earth turns toward the sun, the darkons are drawn away, leaving behind light, except in areas where the darkon field is obstructed by trees, buildings, or the like. The areas in which the darkon field is obstructed are known as "shadows'' So does my pocket flashlight have the same attractional force for darkon particles as the sun? When I shine my flashlight and then place a mirror in front of it to reflect light behind the flashlight, how do the darkons directly in front know to stop being attracted to the flashlight, and how do the darkons behind the light know to suddenly START being attacted to it? These are a couple of simple thought experiments that you need to think through very clearly before presenting your theory. These are all currently explained quite easily with existing theories of light.
John Cuthber Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 Just a thought about the thread title. No, it's not urgent. We have about 5 billion years before it's of any practical importance to us. (of course, that presupposes that your idea is helpful anyway.)
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 It's trivially easy to prove that light exists, as the energy transfer can be easily measured using any number of detectors including bolometers, photodiodes, photomultiplier tubes and many many more. Failing that effects such as plasmonics, etc... are all direct measurable proof that light exists... Darkons just won't work. Sorry.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 How does one explain the photoelectric effect via darkons? Or Compton scattering? Or X-ray imagery? Or radio?
Klaynos Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 Even the Fresnel equations would fail. Maxwell's equations would have no explanation. There are many many many many problems here.
baric Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 It is possible to make Darkons work. We just need to patch the theory to fit experimental data. What you would need to match observation is some sort of particle that transmits the attractive force to darkons from darkon attractors. Knowing past experiments, this particle would need to travel at c. And at c, it would need to be massless and measurable in quantum packets. All we need now is a name for this hypothetical massless particle that travels at c from darkon attractors. Any suggestions? I was thinking "anti-darkons" 1
euouae Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) If UV radiation causes cancer, than Dakrons must cure it. Edited October 25, 2011 by euouae
Ophiolite Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 If UV radiation causes cancer, than Dakrons must cure it. Only if they are of the correct frequency.
Appolinaria Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 if sunlight can turn grapes into raisins darkons must be able to turn raisins into grapes
insane_alien Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 if sunlight can turn grapes into raisins darkons must be able to turn raisins into grapes some processes are one way, but barring that, if darkons are true then it is actually the lack of darkons that turn grapes into raisins and photons don't exist. its all baloney anyway.if it was darkons then all sorts of interesting things should be happening. IIRC this was used by our physics teacher in high school to show that there can be multiple plausible sounding theories and to determine a way to test each. as expected photons worked out. primarily because of the photoelectric effect.
mississippichem Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 How does one explain the photoelectric effect via darkons? Or Compton scattering? Or X-ray imagery? Or radio? Or single molecule fluorescence. One measured photon in, one measured photon out. The existence of darkons would make all spectroscopy fail miserably.
baric Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 The existence of darkons would make all spectroscopy fail miserably. Don't tell that to the creationists! -1
Brainteaserfan Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksuck.txt https://www.msu.edu/user/dynicrai/physics/dark.htm
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now