Phx Lord Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 My theory has just had a few holes poked through it. I would like evryone who cares jot down thier theories and supporting argument on this thread. I can then review these theories to refine my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 And exactly what would be your theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 A lack of something does not have a speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vordhosbn Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Imo, darkness, if defined as the transition between illumination and lack of such, in certain direction, does have speed, but since it's not an object, but continious series of events , there is no violation of relativity here (which i'am almost certain the OP implies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 A lack of something does not have a speed. How fast does a hole move through a semiconductor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 How fast does a hole move through a semiconductor? But that is a pseudo-particle... There are no holetons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Speed of darkness Upon the Earth, about 40.000 km a day, or something more than 1600km/h, twice the speed of a Jumbo jet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Darkness moves at the speed of light. However, a shadow can move much faster (or slower). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phx Lord Posted April 26, 2010 Author Share Posted April 26, 2010 :DHa, ha, ha. These are all very interesting replies. Some of you want to know what my theory is, this could help define my question. Google "antiphoton". The first link leads to this site. Login. It's basically all of page three. Then it was suggested I should do it here, in the speculations forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 anti-photons would not appear dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 But that is a pseudo-particle... There are no holetons... Still, we describe the motion of a lack of an electron, because it's convenient to do so. One could attempt a model based on dark particles, or for thermodynamics on the movement of cold. But they would fail the Occam test somewhere; for dark one place would be in describing the complete absence of light. How many darkons would that take? Photons explain this in a much more elegant fashion. The photoelectric effect is another phenomenon where photons explain the effect simply. Darkons would, at best, be another pseudo-particle explanation with a limited application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 :Google "antiphoton". The term "antiphoton" already has a meaning in physics, though the photon is it's own antiparticle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phx Lord Posted April 28, 2010 Author Share Posted April 28, 2010 The term "antiphoton" already has a meaning in physics, though the photon is it's own antiparticle. Whether or not it is in use, that is the path I took to this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Whether or not it is in use, that is the path I took to this site. Is this your ideas or someone else's? Either way, it is usually a bad idea to invent terminology where established terminology exists and/or using existing terminology for something unrelated to the established meaning. It only courses confusion. Lots of "crackpots" do the above quite a lot (of course mainstream scientists are also guilty of this of occasion). I think it stems from misunderstanding the original concepts and not being aware of the existing literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phx Lord Posted April 28, 2010 Author Share Posted April 28, 2010 Is this your ideas or someone else's? Either way, it is usually a bad idea to invent terminology where established terminology exists and/or using existing terminology for something unrelated to the established meaning. It only courses confusion. Likely someone somewhere has had the same idea, but I have come to it without their input, if that's what you are asking. As for my terminology, I started with something I know of (photons), and branched out from there to antiphotons. This is because I belive the speed of dark related to the speed of light and therefore photons, but it can't be photons exactly I thought, because that would make it light. The fact remains however, that I am relatively ignorant with what I know, compared with what there is to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 As for my terminology, I started with something I know of (photons), and branched out from there to antiphotons. So you know photons are their own antiparticle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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