Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
This is an interesting theory, but I don't really see how light couldn't be emitted from bulbs, saying that they "suck in" darkness doesn't sit well with me, the reason for that being light as we know it is part of the light spectrum (duh lol) and as that stands, the light spectrum carries over into radiation (or better yet harmful radiation), such as x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet rays, etc. when it comes down to it, the light we see is nothing but radiation and we have proven that true radiation (when I say "true" radiation I'm talking about radiation that comes in rays and excluding particle radiation variants like alpha and beta, which are literally harmful particles that you can inhale that can be blocked by the skin or other materials) gives off rays, therefore a bulb would have to be giving off the light you see from it, not eating the darkness, but overtaking it as science initially states.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
When you look how how a bulb works, you can see that it emits light by heating up the coils inside....not because its 'sucking up the dark'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnMP1Uj2nz0
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
This seems really dumb to me..
Darkness simply means that there is a lack of luminous energy to light up whatever area that's dark. Darkness has no matter and is no form of actual energy as this makes it seem.
And then we have the light bulb, which is nothing but electricity passing through a filament wire which has the effect of creating such a high temperature that the wire glows, not some "dark sucking" hoobabooba.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Can somebody say time cube?
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
You say electric bulbs are dark suckers, then, in the same post, say fire is a dark sucker. Fire is hot because it's fire, not because it's sucking dark. The wick might be a dark sucker, but if that's true, it wouldn't need fire to do it (it'd need electricity).
Interesting attempt, though. Next time, construct it in the reverse. "The phenomenon known as 'dark sucking' was first observed in the burning of wood and nature. Thinking it was simply bright heat, they transferred this to a more controllable instrument, the candle. When Thomas Edison finally realized that electricity had the same dark sucking property as fire, he built the light bulb around it (knowing that it would be more efficient, safe, and abundant than fire). Although Thomas Edison may have been the one to discover the property of dark sucking, it wasn't until just recently that the science behind this strange phenomenon came to light. ..." Then... Explain it. Or something like that.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Darkness, as our eyes depict it, is black in color. Since colors don't exist because our eyes create them, then maybe darkness doesn't exist. Or maybe it's always there until light blankets it away.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Albear
Since colors don't exist because our eyes create them
Eh?
Please, do explain.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
@Konkulf
Well, it you had no eyes, you will technically ”see” only the color black. A color, along with white, are probably the only ”colors” that truly exists beyond our perception. Our eyes, with the help of our brains, convert certain ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum into various color, mostly from white.. And maybe some fron black.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Ahh, I might have misunderstood a bit of what you said the first time, my bad :redface:
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Albear
@
Konkulf
Well, it you had no eyes, you will technically ”see” only the color black. A color, along with white, are probably the only ”colors” that truly exists beyond our perception. Our eyes, with the help of our brains, convert certain ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum into various color, mostly from white.. And maybe some fron black.
It's not that your eyes see color, your eyes capture electromagnetic waves for your brain to interpret. Without eyes, you wouldn't "see" anything... Your eyes AREN'T there (seeing clearly requires eyes, seeing really only requires the optic nerve). You could push images from the outside world in real time into your brain that have shapes and contrast with ONLY your brain (though, as we'd expect, it would be seriously lacking in detailed color). You don't see black, you just simply don't see color (and this absence is interpreted as black). We use color to describe the frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (and they'd certainly exist even if the entire human race had no eyes). There are three primary colors of the visible spectrum (red, green, blue), all three of which combine to form what we see as white light. Black is not a color where light is involved.
So, technically speaking, black is the absence of electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum, and thus if a space is perceived as black, then there must be no visible light present there. Instead of "dark suckers", it should be quite the contrary. Darker objects suck visible light at every opportunity. Darker objects do not allow visible light to reflect off of them, giving the appearance of no light being present (blackness). So... Dark objects should be called Light Suckers (as if we didn't know that already).
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
@Kusuke
Technically not seeing any color due to the absence of eyes is still figuratively ”seeing” black. Doesn't matter if you are missing the optic nerve, your brain and very being will still perceive something.. which is pitch black.
Again, colors such as red or blue does not exist beyond our brain. We create these colors.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Albear
@
Kusuke
Again, colors such as red or blue does not exist beyond our brain. We create these colors.
Sorry, but they do exist. Color is simply how objects absorb light and reflect it, unless its man-made [such as clothes, plastics, etc], then its based on dyes/inks/pigments we use. This is why we all see the same colors the same way [sans reds, women have more optic cones to see more variations of red than men do.]
If we want to get technical about color-
"Color is the visual effect that is caused by the spectral composition of the light emitted, transmitted, or reflected by objects."
If theres no light, we cant perceive the color, thus "black" [again, unless we're talking about inks/dyes/pigments]
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Albear
@
Kusuke
Technically not seeing any color due to the absence of eyes is still figuratively ”seeing” black. Doesn't matter if you are missing the optic nerve, your brain and very being will still perceive something.. which is pitch black.
Again, colors such as red or blue does not exist beyond our brain. We create these colors.
It may be true that we created our perception of color, but I don't think anyone understands the neurological side of color enough to determine where color lies in the brain. Philosophical questions follow. For example, how do we know we are seeing the same colors? Probably because human's brains are similarly adapted as a species, and that dictates which color we see and why, so we have no question. The only exceptions are when the eyes are not functioning properly or missing.
However, seeing black does not make black a color (though artists would argue since you can use colors to make black), seeing pitch black means you aren't seeing ANY color (or ANY THING for that matter). There are black objects, but they are absorbing most (if not all) of the light and none of it is making it to your brain, so therefore you are not assigning a color to it. It is just what appears when there is no light present. We feel the need to label it, and so it is very confusing (and often debated).
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
You are in a sealed room that is illuminated by a single light bulb. There are no windows or other light sources in the room. When you came in the room and closed the door behind you, there was no darkness in the room because according to the dark sucker theory, all of the dark had been sucked from the room and is currently being stored in the bulb. Suddenly the light is extinguished, and you are shrouded in darkness.
If the Dark sucker theory is taken to be true, how did you suddenly fall into darkness when the light bulb was turned off? You didn’t break the bulb, and there was no darkness in the room. If a light bulb was a dark sucker, then dark would not return to the room when it is extinguished, just as a floor does not instantly become dirty again after you turn off a vacuum cleaner. If the dark was sucked from the room, supposedly permanently, then wouldn’t the light remain there in its place indefinitely? If the dark sucker theory is true, then where did the dark come from if it was all sucked up? How did the room get dark again?
Damn, looks like a simple Google search could have cleared this up before it was ever posted.
This is why science classes should be required up through basic physics and chemistry. I don't care if you don't use it; at least ludicrous drivel like this would be far less common and slightly more entertaining.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Wait, I have to clarify something-
Are we speaking strictly of light or of color in general? Because in light black is the absence of color, in color [pigment] it is all colors combined to create black.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ωmega
Sorry, but they do exist. Color is simply how objects absorb light and reflect it, unless its man-made [such as clothes, plastics, etc], then its based on dyes/inks/pigments we use. This is why we all see the same colors the same way [sans reds, women have more optic cones to see more variations of red than men do.]
If we want to get technical about color-
"Color is the visual effect that is caused by the spectral composition of the light emitted, transmitted, or reflected by objects."
If theres no light, we cant perceive the color, thus "black" [again, unless we're talking about inks/dyes/pigments]
I feel like a brainless dood reading your post as well as Kusuke's. Okay, since you two sound more credible, I'll agree with some of the stuff.
Now.. You mentioned how women can can see more red than men, well see that is your eyes converting a wider range of the electromagnetic spectrum for red. Okay, maybe color does exist. As for fixed colors on man made items.... I completely disagree, if what you are saying is that everyone perceives it the same. My best example is a ball my younger sister use to own. To me, its red as a strawberry. But she says it's pink. We both agree that strawberries are red.. But not the ball.
---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------
@Kusuke
For the most part, I think we see the same color.. Maybe the shading/brightness are the differences for people.
If black isn't a color because it's the absence of light, then it's simply just nothing? Like you said, we still need to label it.. so it's black. But, it's not a color because the EM spectrum does not exist within darkness.... but it's still black, which most would say is a color.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
The Dark Sucker would be a great name for a sentai show monster-of-the-week.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Albear
I feel like a brainless dood reading your post as well as Kusuke's. Okay, since you two sound more credible, I'll agree with some of the stuff.
Now.. You mentioned how women can can see more red than men, well see that is your eyes converting a wider range of the electromagnetic spectrum for red. Okay, maybe color does exist. As for fixed colors on man made items.... I completely disagree, if what you are saying is that everyone perceives it the same. My best example is a ball my younger sister use to own. To me, its red as a strawberry. But she says it's pink. We both agree that strawberries are red.. But not the ball.
---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------
@
Kusuke
For the most part, I think we see the same color.. Maybe the shading/brightness are the differences for people.
If black isn't a color because it's the absence of light, then it's simply just nothing? Like you said, we still need to label it.. so it's black. But, it's not a color because the EM spectrum does not exist within darkness.... but it's still black, which most would say is a color.
Her seeing it as one color while you see it another is a prime example of what I mentioned. As a girl, she could probably see that it had more of a pink tone to it over being 'red'. Another example, maroon and burgundy look identical to my bf, but to me one has more pink the other has more purple. If they were blues we'd see the exact same colors. Now, its not ALL women, but about half of them. You can read about it a bit more here
http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/50-...Than-Eve/50001
The colors are there, men just cant perceive them. Some animals can actually see ultraviolet. The color exists, our eyes just cant physically see it, but some other animals can. The color is always there, its more of a matter of how advanced our eyes are.
Fun fact- the human eye can pick up more shades of green than any other color, which is why night vision is green
http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/Nig...o-See-Th/54580
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ωmega
Her seeing it as one color while you see it another is a prime example of what I mentioned. As a girl, she could probably see that it had more of a pink tone to it over being 'red'. Another example, maroon and burgundy look identical to my bf, but to me one has more pink the other has more purple. If they were blues we'd see the exact same colors. Now, its not ALL women, but about half of them. You can read about it a bit more here
http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/50-...Than-Eve/50001
The colors are there, men just cant perceive them. Some animals can actually see ultraviolet. The color exists, our eyes just cant physically see it, but some other animals can. The color is always there, its more of a matter of how advanced our eyes are.
Fun fact- the human eye can pick up more shades of green than any other color, which is why night vision is green
http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/Nig...o-See-Th/54580
Imma look up animals seeing ultraviolet radiation.. Cuz I thought that was a bunch of bull when I read that. In addition to shades of green, we can see infrared, like night vision, needs another piece of tech to aid our eyes.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Albear
Imma look up animals seeing ultraviolet radiation.. Cuz I thought that was a bunch of bull when I read that. In addition to shades of green, we can see infrared, like night vision, needs another piece of tech to aid our eyes.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_anima...aviolet_colors
=]
We had to learn all this in my color theory and color psychology classes @___@
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
The reason humans can't see IR is that we're warm blooded day creatures. We literally glow in the infrared spectrum and live in a world that is also saturated with IR, which makes it impossible to construct an eye that can see it (it would just see full "white" all the time). Some cold blooded night animals like snakes can pull it off though.
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Re: The Dark Sucker Theory
Dark sucker sounds way too lewd