Theory 1

 Theory 2

 Theory 3

 Theory 4

Experiment 1

 Off topic

 Researcher-team

 Dark-suckers

Dark conspiracy

 YSA publication

 BBC Science news

 More questions

Submitted theories

 Submit a theory

In the interest of this investigation I stored some dark to experiment with :

Dark 1

Dark 2

Dark 3

Dark 4

Play around with it if you want to , I don't mind.

Theory 1

Darkness does not move, it is always present, and light is layed on top of it. (As an analogy, consider a table as being darkness, a tablecloth as being light: when you pull the tablecloth off, the table itself (darkness) doesn't move).

This may all sound interesting, but in my simple mind darkness and light are opposites, so if we follow the yin-yang principle it isobvious to me that disturbing one of the two means that the other is disturbed in the opposite direction. In this theory the table stayson the same spot, so lets move on to the next theory.

This diagram explains nothing, but I thought it looked nice. 

Theory 2

Darkness moves at the same speed as light, and it meets the laws of motion in that Darkness is the equal and opposite reaction for the action of the movement of light.

Now this sounds more plausible, but the flaw in this one is that it seems that dark and light exist at the same time in the same place. What?? Sure, if you turn on the light in a closed room the space that was formerly filled with darkness is now filled with light! That means that the light was always there, but it was surpresses by darkness. Confused? Go to the next theory.

Well, here's another bogus diagram.

Theory 3

A man stands at the doorway of his bedroom, attired in boxer shorts and a sleeveless undershirt. One hundred times in a row, he turns off the light switch and dashes for the bed. How many times does he see himself land under the covers? Zero. There isn't any light there. Obviously dark got there quicker than light. Ergo: 
Let " d" equal the speed of dark
d = SQRT( e/m ) + 1
1 what? Hey, I provided the equation. You do the dimensional analysis.

I like this one, but it still needs some work. Good potential though.

This chart explains it all. Or does it??

Theory 4

Light moves. Darkness is the absence of light and does not.

An analogy may help:

Heat moves, cold is the absence of heat. You can describe the rate at which you “cool” and infer a “speed of cold” from that. However the physical reality is that only heat moves.
Similarly you might infer a “speed of darkness” measuring the rate at which darkness envelopes a room when the light is switched off (for example). But be aware that you are actually “measuring” a function of the speed of light – in the room case it is the speed at which the light leaves the room (ie c for speed of light over n refractive index of room accounting for light exit paths, absorption and reflection at boundaries, etc).

See for yourself (if you can read this diagram that is).

Experiment 1

An Experiment from the Second Year Physics Lab

David Mar PhD (1), School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW Australia

Recent work by researchers established that the light and dark were in a continual battle for supremacy. It was established that dark was nocturnal and it was postulated that the speed of dark was variable. Considering the viscosity of dark  it may be shown that dark must in fact have a constant speed, using quantum electrodynamics, QED. Here, researchers from The Mill (YSA's new research labs) present the theoretical basis for these conclusions as well as a practical method for calculating the speed of dark are demonstrated.

Have you ever noticed that when you switch off a laser, there is a noticeable time delay before the spot of light actually disappears? Utilising this important observation, a laser was set up to project a beam of light down the length of the lab, and the time delay between switching the laser off and the disappearance of the red spot on the front wall was measured with a stopwatch. Ten observations of this time were made, shown below:

The mean time and standard error of the mean from these readings was 0.41±0.01 s, but since the readings of 0.53 s, 0.44 s, and 0.47 s are clearly anomalous (2), they were discarded. The mean of the remaining seven readings was 0.374±0.001 s, which is clearly a better result since the uncertainty is so much lower (3).

The distance from the exit aperture of the laser to the diffuse reflecting planar surface upon which the coherent light beam was observed (4) was carefully measured (5) and found to be 18.49±0.01 m. Applying careful thought to the peculiarities of the chosen geometry, it was realised that the photons of the light beam were actually travelling twice this distance - to the front wall and then back again to the eye after reflection. The total distance travelled by the light is therefore 36.98±0.02 m.

Dividing the distance travelled by the observed time lag, the deduced speed is 98.9±0.3 m/s. Thoughtful readers will have realised already that this is not actually the speed of light, per se, but the speed of dark, as the observations were made of the time lag between turning the laser off and observing the arrival of the dark at the front wall.

However, it can easily be shown by symmetry arguments that the speed of dark is related to the speed of light by

,

where α is the dimensionless atomic fine structure constant.

Performing the calculation, the resultant speed of light from this experiment is (2.998±0.009)×10⁸ m/s, which is consistent with the accepted value of 2.99792×10⁸ m/s. In fact, the agreement is good to the fifth significant figure, indicating that the uncertainty estimates used throughout the experiment were somewhat conservative.

1 Adapted by The Mill for YSA National with the permission of the author.
2 This is a great word to use when describing data you don't like.
3 Always a good justification for throwing away dodgy data.
4 The front wall of the lab.
5 With the "end to end" technique using two wooden metre rules.

Off topic:

This is no theory, but a nice idea:   

The only thing which actually moves faster than light (apart from the theoretical tachyon) is bad news. Attempts to use bad news as a fuel for FTL (Faster Than Light, webmaster) starships have stonewalled due to the consequence that wherever you arrive nobody wants to see you.

Off topic as well:

For that matter, how about this idea:

Based on the twin principles that buttered bread will always fall face down and cats always land on their feet, consider the consequences of strapping a piece of bread, buttered side up, to the back of a cat, and then dropping it.
The twin "device" will hover just above the ground, rapidly rotating as the buttered side of the bread and the cat's feet compete to land on the ground.
To create your own hovercraft, merely assemble an array of these "buttered cats", and place your lounge/deck chair/spa on top.

Look at this dark go :

At this point I want to introduce my research-team. They are a funny lot and we always have lots of laughs in between cooking up new "Speed of dark" theories.

This is my back-up team. (not so funny)

Also we developed this machine that works in the dark as well as by daylight. It's a bit noisy though, but it does the job. (don't know it's exact function, but it looks cool)

A drawing of our new device. (still under construction)

At this point I want to introduce this radical theory:

For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light. 
The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. lA 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 path of the dark flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again. 
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly 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 and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way. 
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet. 

I am inclined to believe the dark-sucker story, but there's more to it :

A few years ago a friend and I tried to develop a theory of dark, having exactly the same empirical content as the accepted theory of light. It involves particles of darkness which we call darkons - sort of the opposite of photons.
Normal space is chock full of darkons, which make everything look dark. Fortunately, however, we can get rid of darkons in various ways. For example, if you are in a dark room, full of darkons, and turn on what you naively call a "light", the "light bulb" acts as a darkon absorber, sucking up the nearby darkons. Of course, as nearby darkons are absorbed, others move in to fill the gaps, leaving spaces further away.
What is the speed of dark? Well, consider how fast darkons are sucked up by any standard darkon absorber. The speed is obviously what we incorrectly refer to as the speed of light.
The theory of darkons is at this stage incomplete. After thinking through various consequences of the model, we had a few minor problems with issues such as causality. We are confident that there are ways around such problems, though a radical new physical theory may be needed.
Is the relationship between photons and darkons anything like the relationship between electrons and holes in semiconductors? If so, and given that the mobility/speed of holes in a semiconductor is always less than that of electrons, can you indeed be certain that darkons are as fast as photons?
One could easily argue that holes are slowed down because the electrons which define them are moving through a dense medium (conceptually speaking). The darkons defined by photons are not moving through any media, so the shuffle of photons to move a darkon could occure nearly instantaniously, giving you darkon the same or near the velocity of photons.

You figure it out.

Publication by the YSA (Young Scientists of Australia):

'Let there be dark'  

This publication addresses a subject that has been overlooked for far too long in the scientific community. A great deal has been written regarding the properties of light with such aspects as its speed, the relationship it has with energy and so forth. But the properties of dark have not been made public until very recently when information about the Darksucker Conspiracy was leaked by someone from our offices and into the YSA Sydney newsletter. Whoever you are, you're sacked.

I must now accept the responsibility of explaining dark to the world. First let us consider some of the most obvious evidence.

Dark is most usually encountered at night so it can be quickly established that it is nocturnal. This in itself may seem trivial, but in matters as important as this, everything is vital to our understanding. Next, let us consider the speed of dark. When we turn off a light switch and allow dark to enter a room, it can be observed that dark arrives instantly as soon as the light is turned off. This leads to two possible conditions

Dark is capable of moving at 'blinding' speed, or Dark was in the room all the time but could not be seen due to the glare of the light. This second option is quite possible as light is much brighter than dark. It has also been observed that when night falls, dark is first noticeable in the deepest ravines and valleys, then progresses gradually up the hillsides, finally arriving on the mountaintops. This seems to indicate that the speed of dark is very slow. So is the speed of dark very fast or very slow? There is only one possible answer - the speed of dark, unlike light, is infinitely variable.

This progression of dark seems to be reversed at dawn. Dark leaves the mountaintops first, creeps down the hillsides and leaves the ravines last. Does everyone see the pattern developing here? Dark is always on the bottom, light is always on the top! What does this mean? Allow me to save you the long hours of deliberation required to arrive at the correct conclusion. It simply indicates that dark is heavier than light. This of course refers to dark in its natural state. When humans start to have a bit of a fiddle with any property of nature, things tend to change, so the weight relationship between dark and light may be altered in the future with consequences as yet unknown.

When dark disappears from the valleys at daybreak, have you ever wondered where it all goes? I have spent long hours searching for dark in broad daylight. I have found that dark spends the day in many places such as caves, hollow trees, coal mines, rabbit burrows and wells. After the ever-present interference of humans, dark sometimes gets trapped inside buildings and other places not intended by Mother Nature.

Another property that has come to my attention is the consistency of dark. I have discovered that dark is more tightly packed than light. This can be easily deduced from the fact that you cannot see through dark whereas you can see almost unlimited distances through light - with the possible exceptions of Mexico City and Sydney.

Dark has considerable effects on many things, including humans and other wild animals. Humans tend to have sex mostly in the dark, as well as commit crimes, get drunk, and engage in barber shop singing. This could possibly be the origin of the term 'to be left in the dark' but why it is now held as a rather negative term is beyond me. Dogs howl in the dark, bats hunt in the dark, and mice run around your house in the dark. The reason for this strange influence must be left for further research.

When looking at the many applications of light that are in current use, even though it is severely limited with its single speed and such, it can be seen that the number of applications of dark, with no such limitations, is nothing short of enormous! Work on the utilisation of dark has been of primary importance out here in the bunker, and in the following months we shall be releasing our first product: an electric dark. An electric dark will be a godsend for those people who work shiftwork and have trouble sleeping in the day.

Further findings will be presented as they come to hand.

Simon Dodds 

From the BBC Science-news :

Monday, 11 November, 2002, 17:02 GMT

FACT :

Stars account for only about 0.5% of the content of the Universe; the bulk of the Universe is optically dark. The dark side of the Universe is comprised of at least 0.1% light neutrinos; 3.5% baryons; 29% cold dark matter; and 66% dark energy.

FACT :

See how branes would exist in a fifth dimension and create an Ekpyrotic Universe :

Bloody interesting stuff all this, but it raises more questions :

>>> Is empty space ever in motion?

>>> If an unstoppable force meets up with an immovable force what happens?

>>> If you were traveling at the speed of light and you turned a flash light on would you still see the beam in front of you?

>>> Since there is a speed of light and a speed of sound is there a speed of smell?

>>> Why do they call the speed of light warp speed? Doesn't light travel in a straight line?

>>> If light and sound have a measurable speed doesn't that mean that everything we see or hear has already happened? And doesn't it also mean that each and everyone of us is always living in the past?

>>> If a person were to travel faster than the speed of light, how would they be able to see where they are going?

>>> Why is the speed of light always the same?

>>> If gravity bends light, how come light isn't refracted as it leaves the sun?

>>> For every action, isn't there an equal and opposite malfunction?

Theories submitted by visitors :

submitted by Emmanuel Flores

Here's something I thought about:
Light can not exist without dark: Dark can not exist without light, its like ying and yang,
Now to elaborate on this; If there was never light, we could never have a name for dark, as so If there was never any dark, we would not have a name for light, because without one you cannot know it's "opposite"

Also, I was playing with this idea of dark having a color: now I know this sounds retarded but let me explain:
Everything always has two colors: dark and its own color with light: i.e. Your chair: if you turn off the light; it is dark, if you turn it
back on it has it's own color, like brown.
Now how do we know what color "light" is? We assume it's its own color,
now why do we assume that, this is why Because whenever we see light, we assume it's by itself, but its not! It is where pure dark was before! i.e. - In you light bulb, when there is not light in it, what is in it?
(can only be seen when it is night); darkness!
So by this, we can say that light is dark!
 

submitted by  Syed Ali RazaIslamabad

Light is not "light" and dark is not "dark", they both are "somethings" that exist.
and when the thing called light collides with the dark... we see things, and when u
stop the light being thrown at the dark.. u see just the thing that is called dark,
and dark is so densly there.. that u can see anything beyond the very next layer of
ur eye. so in order to see.. u want the light photons or whatever , to always keep
colliding with the thing called dark.. so that they burn out and ur eye can make its
way to the objects and "see" them. so, abt speed of dark.. they dont move. its 0
miles an hour.
 

submitted by BBB

To my knowledge, the electrons in dark states spin much faster than the
electrons in light states. The electrons can not get excited and convert to
the eye as illumination because they spin so fast in the 'ground' state of
what could be a photon of light, thus qualifying them as a photon of dark.

Therefore light and dark states are the same thing ( in gas... whatever
state they can be present in ie; not mass) at different electron speed.
This all relates back to quantum physics and how that relates to the eye of
the observer.

Therefore when a light is switched on, the sun shines etc...the energy-
electrical field omitted from such causes the electrons to slow down. In
this slower state they are able to reach the excited state. Thus causing
light waves, giving a light state.

The speed of dark is actually the speed of speeding electrons.

Therefore the speed of dark is determined by the speed an electron can
speed up.

BBB.

submitted by Jonathan LeBrun

First, darkness is a constant. It is and exists everywhere and that is why it can
move faster than light...instantly. When we shine a light on an object we see a
shadow. That shadow exists because of the continuity of darkness and is only
temporally dimensionally displaced by light. The continuity of darkness explains
why it cannot be measured...if it always exists even when it cannot be seen, then it
has an infinite speed.
Also, I am toying with the idea that the speed of light is the sqrt of the speed
of darkness. Which would mean that darkness travels at 34,596,000,000m/sec. I
think this could help explain space-time travel through wormholes or blackholes.
Additionally, I have read in many places theories that the speed of darkness is
the same as the speed of light based on Newtons 3rd law( for every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction). I disagree with the this theory on the basis
that the theory of darkness as a constant would not allow it to be effected by
light; thus exists both in the absence and present of light, just on a different
plane.
I also think it is the speed of darkness that created the environment for the
universe to be created! The extreme power and speed of dark matter and energy
expanded to such a vastness that the compression in the vacuum of space became so
intense, it inverted a percentage of dark sub-atomic particles or matter and
caused the big bang. But, this is just theory. Please let me know your thoughts
on this.
Thanks

JNL (Jonathan LeBrun)

submitted by Nilesh

we can figure out the speed of light because we can see light. Those who
experimented with the speed of light were humans who had eyesight and who could
see light.. hence its speed was measured. I am sure that a blind person cant
measure the speed of light. They could see because they were not blind. how white
is light and how black is dark depends on the spectrum of the eye. Human eye
spectrum sees dark as black, but humans are not the only entities in the living
universe who are out to measure things. for some species, what humans consider as
dark- black may still be visible enough and be light. Imagine a huge block of
spectrum travelling towards you with very very very dark at both edges gradually
white light in centre... all you would see is light travelling towards you.. why??
because you can only see light... But yes, dark is also travelling at the same
speed. But you will see light travelling through darkness... but you are wrong...
The whole chunk is travelling
 towards you or maybe you are floating along inside the whole chunk.
  
  Finally what you see is what you can measure, what you feel is what you can
measure..... But what we- insignificant living beings are trying to measure is
limited by our capacity and capability to comprehend- something that has been
given to different species in varied levels by someone called GOD.
  
  GOD is not human nor stone not present anywhere.. just imagine a small bacteria
somewhere in our blood.. who thinks he/she/it is intelligent - has own society and
religions, creeds, customs and languages... and is trying to measure something
called light in the blood (universe) it thrives... that bacteria can never
comprehend that it is just a speck inside someone as big as human and that there
are so many humans like the one it is in.... because it cant see beyond a
particular level.. cant think beyond a particular level.. yet believes it is
intelligent....
  
  Similarly, we humans, think we are intelligent but still are not able to figure
out what is dark, what is light and have our dignified theories and awards and
hypothesis... we feel that we are great because we have changed the face of the
earth and moved mountains and by far reached the moon.. but we still do not know
much about the universe and the origin and have some theories that will be die out
too..  Are we not like that bacteria.. I am sure, there is a super human who knows
that there are small bodies, sun, planets and microrganisms like humans, animals,
etc living on a smaller speck called earth... and probably more micro micro
organisms below down the chain.. and i am sure there will be more such super
living beings.... because we know that the universe (blood for the bacteria) is
expanding, moving or something is happening.. but we are not able to comprehend
fully because our our limited capabilities.
  
  Sounds pretty confusing eh... Can you tell me where time starts?

submitted by Rob :

submitted by John R. Vickerstaff :

Sir, I noticed that your equation in Theory 3;   d=sqrt (e/m ) + 1 doesn't take in to account your theory that dark travels faster than light. May I humbly suggest that the undeclared '1' could bring these two, well researched pieces of science together:  '1' is the Latex Buffer Zone Theory. From the beginning of time there have been the two quanta, light and dark. They seem inextricably linked: God declared, "Let there be light", and there was light and the light was good. But, who was He talking to and could He see them prior to the light? So the pre-existence of dark as a medium, before light is given weight. We know that in gravity, mass (matter) has weight, so dark must be matter. However, if dark travels faster than light then what is the medium between the two? Here I suggest the Latex Buffer Zone theory. Take a standard elastic band and hold a length of it between thumb and forefinger of both hands. Now reduce the distance between your hands (by moving along the elastic) until the two thumbnails are in intimate contact Grasping the elastic firmly, pull. From a zero gap, we now get stretched matter, as if by magic. It is this stretched latex that binds the gap between light and dark. In fact, we know from elastic experiments that the stored up energy in an elastic band can help to accelerate matter. Children have experience of catapults. The 'Y' shaped stick is the dark matter and the pebble, the light. Most of us have painfully learnt the effects of a well aimed catapult. Could this be the predecessor to the laser ? Fundamentally the elastic accelerates the light until it catches up with the dark. Aha! I hear skeptics say. The pebble passes the 'Y' stick, so the theory doesn't hold. Don't believe it, for I can confirm that the energy expended in launching the pebble can be readily turned to heat and pain if the thumb inadvertently gets in the way of the projectile……..the light catching up with the dark! Now latex in its raw form is sticky, and can be used as a form of elastic glue. So we'll call the buffer zone: The Latex Gluon Zone. This occupies the gap between the super fast dark matter and the yet-to-catch-up, light. From these simple concepts comes a more miraculous occurrence. For when a breakdown of Latex occurs between these massive forces, the potential for the creation of life is possible!

submitted by Thumbwax :

Before the Big Bang, Darkness was Infinite
The Speed of Light is Finite
Step outside, look at the night sky, after a while, stars appear in places where one perceived only darkness. That's because infinitely faster darkness got to your eyes first, then the slowpoke known as "light" catches up at it's finite pace, and *finally* becomes visible.
There exist Black Holes which swallow everything, including the tortoise-like light.
At some point, The Universe may be swallowed by an enormous Black Hole. If so, and it explodes ...
Rinse and Repeat

Example of the Speed of Dark vs. Light using Twins:
There is no obstruction for miles around. You, the observer, are sitting in an open, yet dimly lit space, and therefore, are visible to each Twin.
One walks towards you under well-lit conditions.
One walks towards you under well-dark conditions.
Which one appears quicker?
That's right. The one coming in from the dark scared the crap out of you, yet you were compelled to holler to the other:
"Hurry the hell up!"

sumitted by KPX :

A lot of the experts investigating Dark Matter are very quick to accept that it exists, and build theories around this, whereas there is no proof at all that there is any such thing. To assume the existence of Dark Matter also assumes that the Universe is expanding, which of course is a long-standing theory with very little evidence to support it. In fact, it's mainly based on a tenuous theory built around quantum redshift . Just because things move around, it doesn't mean they are expanding. The universe could move in circles...

submitted by FloridaManatee :

S. Hawking postulated that if FTL (Faster Than Light, webmaster) is possible, then space-time must be more robust that most people believe (grandfather paradox). Unfortunately, AFAIK the only way to test this is with an event loop and that requires a FTL signal of some sort (i.e. a real  'tachyon'). In my experience, the fastest known phenomena in the universe are:

(1) A calibration error (2) A saucy rumour (3) A hoverboard idea fishbone

All three can send a signal back in time and trigger an event loop.

BTW, if you believe in multiple alternative realities, overlapping so that the perceived reality is the most stable state, then event resonance is quite possible could produce reasonable real-world phenomena, if there is an fundamental attractor that tends to a stable state. This theory neatly reconciles Quantum and Newtonian physics, where Quantum physics reflects the single-state model and Newtonian physics describes the equilibrium state. The trick is quantifying and proving the fundamental time-event attractor, to wit, I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

submitted by Dan Flak :

I have the answer to this one: -300,000 km/sec

I found this out as a result of my research into "Where does the dark go when you open the closet door?" The answer is that it rushes out at a negative 300,000 km/sec. Being highly volatile it evaporates instantly escaping into the upper atmosphere. Eventually it condenses causing night.

People open their closets more in the winter (to get coats and such) than they do in the summer. This explains why the nights are longer in the winter since there is more dark in the air during these months. It condenses more quickly and takes longer to "burn off."

The planet would be in complete darkness if it were not for the invention of the refrigerator light which is a dark dissipation accelerator. It works on the same principal as emission control devices in automobiles.

The national reserve of dark is dwindling as a result of deforestation. Shade from trees (a dilute source of dark) is being reduced at an alarming rate. A lot is being blamed on the use of flashlights which destroy or put a hole in the dark layer. The Environmental Protection Agency is looking for a more environmentally friendly light source, and there is an additional tax on Energizer Batteries.

Nonetheless, there is a comprehensive program to investigate renewable sources of dark such as tapping the undersides of parking lots and buildings. However, environmentalists are concerned about the effects of slant drilling on the ecology.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on the subject. <Insert groan here.>

submitted by Pedro D Swift :

minus -186,000 miles a second or minus-300,000 kilometres a second.
minus-E=MC2.this is the logical answer. if you don't believe me,ask my mum.
                God rides a Harley

submitted by Martijn Gnirrep :

Science would like you to believe there has been an event called the Big Bang. It's
a lie. A very big one. The truth is that there is something called a Big Bag and its
full of money, your money, my money and The Big Bag is getting bigger because we all
fall for the big lie. First let me tell you what the Big Bang is supposed to be:
They observed the stars flying away from each other. According to the laws of
physics, stars being quite large should attract each other with an enormous amount
of gravitational energy. To have them fly away from one other a really big explosion
was needed. They came up with a moment where time started, the universe came into
existence. From a small dot in space time and this was so energetic it exploded for
no reason at all. Stars came into existence and as this all happened in a nano
second the stars still felt the force of this heavy small scale explosion. They
where thrown into all directions. The Big Bang... Of course this is so unbelievable
that we obviously don't believe it for a moment, not even for a nano second. The
scientists also know this stinks big time and for many years they have worked very
very hard to cover this. Actually they are still trying to make it sound realistic
and try to find ways around facts that show that it's all nonsense. Any bright kid
with a large pocket calculator and some mathematic insight can see that it doesn't
add up, according to their own models the universe should have been filled with much
more mass. Science simply says: it doesn't add up because we can't see that mass,
lets call that invisible mass Dark Matter. We cant see it because it's so dark. Yet
the calculation still doesn't add up, no matter how much Dark Matter they throw into
the equation. Next they say, OK Dark Matter sucks but we have invented a way around.
For this Big Bang you dont only need much more mass than we have, you need an awfull
lot of energy. This energy isnt there either. So to compensate for the missing Dark
Matter and the missing energy they came up with a thing called Dark Energy. Energy
isnt solid, therefore you cant see it either. Don't believe them. Of course there is
no such thing as Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Kids who can see that this all doesnt
add up still have to be convinced and so they payed this Hollywood dude George Lucas
an awfull lot of money to make the kids believe there is something like Dark Energy.
In the secret society of scientists who know the truth they call it The Big Bag.
George being awfully glad with this Big Bag of money came with the idea to call
energy The Force, and Dark Energy was dubbed into The Dark Side Of The Force. "Anger
leads to the Dark Side"....Sure, now we all believe it don't we? as if you become
angry because all these scientists are stark raving mad you instantly are proof that
they are right. You will be filled with so called Dark Energy. How on earth could
anybody believe this? By special effects, smart merchandising (making the Big Bag
even bigger) and a gigantic advertisement budget. But he made a mistake, a big
mistake by introducing this Jar Jar guy. The computers needed to render Jar Jar are
too slow. They announced that the third and final part of this sequel of six is the
darkest of them all. Ever tried to project a dark movie on a screen with light? Its
hard. Very very hard, and they needed an awfull lot of rendering time for this. Kids
are born daily and they are running out of time.

So they gave another Big Bag to this guy Peter Jackson in New Zealand, to work from
the other side. He was given a big bag to introduce a Dark Lord. Very powerful, very
evil. And again we can see the same forces at work, more merchandising, more special
effects and more advertisement campaigns. All to protect the Big Lie.

Now you probably going to ask me "how do you explain the movement of the stars?".
Stars being very big arent that easily moved and they obviously all move. The move
outwards from a centre. This centre being the place where The Big Bang is supposed
to have happened. What a nonsense. Stars are astronomically speaking not so big.
Actually the universe is hardly filled with them had it been filled more they would
have had a working model but it isnt. Most of the universe is very very empty. Yet
stars are big enough to attract each other. Then why do they fly outwards, away from
each other? because of a big bang where we dont have the energy for? Anybody with a
little bit of knowledge about physics can see that the stars being small on an
astronomical scale are still too big not to attract each other. The stars not going
towards each other must be attracted by an even bigger mass. They are torn away from
each other. The universe is ripped apart. That sounds much more likely doesnt it?
But where is this big mass and why dont we see it? The real reason is so obvious, so
simple that its hard not to notice, yet most of us fail to see it. There is a simple
reason for that too and I will explain it to you. We can see that the stars move to
all directions. Think about this for a second or two. The answer is right there in
front of you. See it? The big thing attracting the stars must be in the direction
where the stars move, and as the stars move in all directions this big thing must be
surrounding the universe on all sides. The universe is inside this big sphere of
mass. Why cant we see this mass? That is simple to explain too. Think a little bit
more? Didnt figure it out? OK, its a bit technical but I think I can explain it in
normal words... ever heard about gravitational lenses? A gravitational lense is like
a glass lens but without the glass. In a glass lens light is bend in another
direction due the refraction of the glass. With a gravitational lens there is no
glass and therefore no refraction. Light is bend in another way. Light is very
light. A photon weighs almost nothing. Still it does weigh something and as with
everything that weighs something its attracted by gravity. If you apply enough
gravity the light is bended. Gravitational lenses exists. So if light is attracted
by gravity what happens if you have a mass large enough to pull the stars outward?
Yes thats right, its surely big enough to attract the light too. any visual evidence
is pulled away from us, towards this gigantic mass that surrounds the universe and
therefore we cant see it. Its not a dark mass, its only so very very big that it
attracts all visual evidence of its existence and WE cant see it. No such thing as
Dark Matter flying around the universe. If Dark Matter would come in between us and
a star the star would disappear, but as soon as the Dark Matter is gone between us
and the star we would see the star reappear again. That doesnt happen and therefore
there is no Dark Matter. However, any large mass opposite of the stars would attract
light to that mass and it would never reach us. Simple isnt it? But I bet you still
have a few questions. Questions as like, where does it go to when it reaches this
mass? When it reaches the mass something very interesting happens. Laws of physics
tell us that it cant be gone, energy or mass, it must still go somewhere. Now the
answer is scaringly obvious. It does go somewhere. What goes out of our visible
universe slips back into it. Not in some unseen galactic centre but right there
where we expected it a few thousands years already to go to. To the real centre. We
have known that the earth is the centre of the universe for centuries until some mad
scientists came with this unbelievable idea that we have a galactic centre. They are
wrong. Earth IS the centre and everything that hits this large mass surrounding the
universe comes back through the centre of the earth. When the light and mass of
those stars reach the outside they are compressed into a very small thing, the
photons are pushed inside it. Its getting dark. Not like the Dark Matter or Dark
Energy that is supposed to be flying wild around the universe but into a very dark,
black very energetic substance. Some of it solid, some of it between energetic and
solid state, being liquid. Do you see what I talk about. The very thing that fills
The Big Bag of money. Black Gold coming out of the earth. Coal and Oil. Didnt you
ever wonder how we can illuminate our houses with this Black Gold? Simply by
breaking the molecules open, releasing the photons that are trapped inside. Thats
how the Big Bag works. Light that matters is reaching the outer wall of the
universe, is compressed and trapped into these molecules and those molecules, filled
to the top with photons pop up at the centre of the universe, in the middle of the
earth. There they find their way up, wanting to travel to the outside of the
universe once again. Thats why they dont want to stay in the centre of the earth and
why we can get it out of the earth simply by drilling a hole in the ground. Oil
comes out and we convert it into the C of the equation. That good old E=MC2 equation
of Albert Einstein. Energy remains energy but when the Mass is opened to release
that Energy it produces the big C. Currency. Where does that currency go? Right, it
all ends up in The Big Bag and now we have completed the circle, we are right there
where we started. Nothing really disappears, no missing matter, no missing energy.
The good old equation being as sound as it should be. Its all there right in front
of you. Why dont they want us to know this? Because this simply leads to the
conclusion that this Big Bag should belong to everybody. Its the universe coming out
of the ground and we all have an equal right to receive our share of it. They dont
want to share. Only when the Big Bag reaches a critical size its split up in Not So
Big Bags which in turn start to grow into Big Bags themselves. Those who already
have a Big Bag are attracted to Currency and they want more. Always needing more.
Thats why we are told all those lies. We are not allowed our dip in The Big Bag.
Thats why. The people who have The Big Bags want us to produce more currency as The
Bags want to grow. It has to because all the time matter and photons are leaving the
visible universe. Stars seem do die. They dont. They simply reach a point where the
photons they emmit can no longer escape the gravitational pull and are attracted to
the outer wall and the starlight fades away. The stars only seem to die. Its all
there right in front of you.

Want more evidence? Ever heard about the light in peoples eyes. Ever looked into
someones eyes? No light is shining from them... That is, not with humans, as all the
light we had in our eyes is attracted to The Big Bag. Thats why we have to work for
the Currency. Thats why we have to pay for babysitters, converting our siblings
eyelight instantly into currency. Cats and Dogs. They know the truth. Thats why you
can see their eyes in the dark. They shine...thats why cats and dogs dont work for a
living. They know that working would convert their internal light into currency and
they would be absorbed by The Big Bag.... Cats and Dogs are a lot smarter than us.
They dont need no scientists to tell them lies. They KNOW!

submitted by Glenn Estrada :

Interesting observations that other people had. However, it fails to address how
darkness and light are opposites. I think that darkness and light aren't seperate, but
darkness exisists with light. look; if you shine a beam of light on an object, what
do you see? a shadow. turn off the light. now what? the shadow dissapears.  so it
seems that light and darkness is 1. now; if dark was an abscence of light, why isn't
light an abscence of dark? dark moves, i think, at the speed of light, and faster in
some cases. i'am coming up with a theory of why this is, and i should be writing
back soon.

Thanks for the interesting points of view and keep them coming. I will place them here.

Finally:

I think that at this point it's still not clear what's the right theory, but that is what makes this "dark" stuff so interesting.

I think it's a challenge to think about things like this, so I invite anybody who can shed new "light" on this matter to please

let me know, so I can add new proove/evidence/bullshit to this page. Let your brain work, it's healthy.

Mail to :

mailme(at)freakface.com

Feel free to also visit my other websites :