What is the speed of dark?

[ScorpDiesel]

I disagree, with the twin paradox theory in this case. That only applies to time travel - that is being able to bend time. If I could be in something that could BEND time, then yes - there'd be an instanteous arrival and age difference with my twin because while they had to follow the normal linear time line, I was able to "skip" forward on the path without chronologically aging.

Time is the only known constant in the known universe. So being in a "vehicle" that happens to accelerate or decelerate has no affect on time per se, just the amount of time needed to reach a destination.

If I took a very powerful flashlight and flashed it at Proxima today, someone standing on Proxima wouldn't be seen until 2012 at earliest.

Again, the same constant holds true to the stars we see.

The light we see, was cast by the star in some cases 1,000's years ago. For all we know that motherfucker could have blown itself all to hell in a Nova and we be none the wiser for Centuries until we noticed an erratic wobble or radiaton increases which haven't even reached us yet.

The Twin Paradox has nothing to do with time travel.

Time is not constant. Space AND time warp in intense gravitational fields. There are many constants in the universe.

1. Speed of light
2. Cosmological Constant
3. Planck Constant
4. Element particle masses are constants

 

[Tazirai]

darkness has no speed because it exists everywhere.only light can travel because it has to have an origin.

Actually Darkness is faster than Light.. The expansion of the Universe is proof of that.

Darkness is spreading the fastest.

But there is no speed of darkness.

 

[Heist]

The Twin Paradox has nothing to do with time travel.

Time is not constant. Space AND time warp in intense gravitational fields. There are many constants in the universe.

1. Speed of light
2. Cosmological Constant
3. Planck Constant
4. Element particle masses are constants

The speed of light IS NOT a true constant because light has mass. The photon's, as light as they are have some trace masses and it can be acted upon and slowed even stopped in the presence of great gravitational forces.
That's why light can't escape a black hole.

Time is the one and only true constant. Nothing changes or stops time. Time cannot be transformed or bent.

When you bend space, you bend DISTANCE not time. The time that it takes you to travel that distance is shortened but time itself has not been changed.

I walk from NYC to DC ... it takes me a week.
I drive from NYC to DC .... it takes me 3 hours.
I fly from NYC to DC ... it takes me 50 minutes.

Time hasn't changed, but the amount of time I used to travel that distance has.

If I could find some magic portal to shorten the distance, I'd still be using time at a constant rate, just less of it.

 

[Heist]

Actually Darkness is faster than Light.. The expansion of the Universe is proof of that.

Darkness is spreading the fastest.

But there is no speed of darkness.

I wouldn't say that per se.

Darkness is simply the absence of light or more specifically, light photons.

Expansion of the universe doesn't have much to do with it.

Close your refridgerator and the light goes out ... doesn't mean your fridge is expanding into infinity.

Right now in our know universe, there's just more dark areas than light photons. And thank God for that because if not, it would be like fucking daylight all the time - but worse, the solar noise from all those light sources would give our planet a constant static hum we'd hear all day and night.

 

[NinjaspiT]

Actually Darkness is faster than Light.. The expansion of the Universe is proof of that.

Darkness is spreading the fastest.

But there is no speed of darkness.

thats basically what i said bra

 

[tekk]

You don't? My inner voice sounds like James Earl Jones. But hey, I'm different.

hmmm.... if a person is born deaf, what language does his inner voice speaks?

 

[metaphysiks]

it has no speed

 

[~WS~]

time is (infinite/eternal)
while we're at it you can add space (infinite/eternal)
and for a quick arguments sake i'll also say integers and numbers are infinite

Damn, bra i concede to your point.

How in the fuck could i forget about numbers / integers is beyond me

My maths professor would slap the shit outta me if he saw me now

 

[Les W]

The speed of light IS NOT a true constant because light has mass. The photon's, as light as they are have some trace masses and it can be acted upon and slowed even stopped in the presence of great gravitational forces.
That's why light can't escape a black hole.

Time is the one and only true constant. Nothing changes or stops time. Time cannot be transformed or bent.

When you bend space, you bend DISTANCE not time. The time that it takes you to travel that distance is shortened but time itself has not been changed.

I walk from NYC to DC ... it takes me a week.
I drive from NYC to DC .... it takes me 3 hours.
I fly from NYC to DC ... it takes me 50 minutes.

Time hasn't changed, but the amount of time I used to travel that distance has.

If I could find some magic portal to shorten the distance, I'd still be using time at a constant rate, just less of it.

Been tryin to explain this to people Einstein got it fucked up

 

[william busa]

The question was, when will NIGGAS wake up?

The excellent answer was

Never. Once a nigga wakes up the nigga ceases to exist.

 

[outkastic2001]

The speed of light IS NOT a true constant because light has mass. The photon's, as light as they are have some trace masses and it can be acted upon and slowed even stopped in the presence of great gravitational forces.
That's why light can't escape a black hole.

Time is the one and only true constant. Nothing changes or stops time. Time cannot be transformed or bent.

When you bend space, you bend DISTANCE not time. The time that it takes you to travel that distance is shortened but time itself has not been changed.

I walk from NYC to DC ... it takes me a week.
I drive from NYC to DC .... it takes me 3 hours.
I fly from NYC to DC ... it takes me 50 minutes.

Time hasn't changed, but the amount of time I used to travel that distance has.

If I could find some magic portal to shorten the distance, I'd still be using time at a constant rate, just less of it.

I feel you this this but, There is no such thing as time in the universe.( this a Human concept) Distance from the big bang is the equivalent to what we would call time. Because the universe is infinite your past, present and future is occurring at the same moment in space. ( the only difference is the distance from the big bang) this is know in quantum mechanics as multi-universes. (string theory) where micro particals can be in two/ several places at once.

So when you use this argument :
I walk from NYC to DC ... it takes me a week.
I drive from NYC to DC .... it takes me 3 hours.
I fly from NYC to DC ... it takes me 50 minutes.

If we remove time from the equation, we are left with one constant - distance. no matter how quick or slow you got to the destination. the distance never changed. Time however is only relative to the manner you choice to get to point B. therefore, time is not constant it can be manipulated.

Light, however is a true constant over a give distance. I'm with you on the if there something blocking it, it changes light's speed. But removing any inhibitors, over a given distance light is very constant and efficient. Because under controlled conditions it's the fastest moving entity, it's used for measuring massive distances.

 

[outkastic2001]

What is the speed of dark?

Good question. Dark - meaning dark matter. Was is here before the big bang or after?

If it was here before the big bang, is that the palate that the universe is expanding on.

If it was created during the big bang, why is it moving faster than the speed of light? What makes it move faster than light?

When know that light interacts with dark matter, so what does that mean? (very open ended question)

Is dark matter the gate way to understand the multi-Universe?

 

[quasimotto]

u been listening 2 to much cipha sounds & rosenberg...

LOL

 

[metaphysiks]

u been listening 2 to much cipha sounds & rosenberg...

LOL

i just got up on that show....shit is fuego

 

[tekk]

I feel you this this but, There is no such thing as time in the universe.( this a Human concept)

time is da life line to everything in existence/universe. nothing could exist with out time, not even black. it's a lot deeper than a couple of numbers on your wrist watch

What is the speed of dark?

Good question. Dark - meaning dark matter. Was is here before the big bang or after?

no such thing as a big bang. time/universe is infinite. neither one could exist without each other. If it did have a starting point, at what time did it start? There must be time to start time. there have to be time prior to that start time, cuz logically it's impossible to have a present without past. stop believing all these bullshit theories, cuz simply mathematics ain't never lie. plus dark matter is apart of da universe so there's no such thing as da universe expanding. it would be impossible for da universe to not exist in certain areas, cuz that would mean time would cease to exist in that imaginary region, which is impossible.

 

[~WS~]

time is da life line to everything in existence/universe. nothing could exist with out time, not even black. it's a lot deeper than a couple of numbers on your wrist watch



no such thing as a big bang. time/universe is infinite. neither one could exist without each other. If it did have a starting point, at what time did it start? There must be time to start time. there have to be time prior to that start time, cuz logically it's impossible to have a present without past. stop believing all these bullshit theories, cuz simply mathematics ain't never lie. plus dark matter is apart of da universe so there's no such thing as da universe expanding. it would be impossible for da universe to not exist in certain areas, cuz that would mean time would cease to exist in that imaginary region, which is impossible.

Consider this...

IF there was a big and and hence a completely different set of physical laws in a plank-length universe before said big bang than any postulation you make on the grounds of the laws based in THIS universe would be worthless. The mathematics which you speak of would be a mess and completely out of order in that universe.

 

[Rawness]

If you traveled at the speed of light, you would arrive at Proxima Centauri instantly but, the folks on earth watching ur travel will have measured 4yrs passed.

You'll have to elaborate on this.

Light travels @ 3e8 m/s. If you travel to a place 4 light years away, why wouldn't it take you four years to get there?

 

[Coldchi]

i guess its safe to assume that the speed of light is determined by how fast ones retina can ascertain light. im pretty sure a muthafucka with perfect vision can detect light faster than a nigga with cataracts.

 

[Ratt]

Bored.
What is the Speed of Dark?

Super Fast!

I know! I was going through some pictures, came across this one, and found the humor with the thread!

 

[Rawness]

i guess its safe to assume that the speed of light is determined by how fast ones retina can ascertain light. im pretty sure a muthafucka with perfect vision can detect light faster than a nigga with cataracts.

No. Lights traveling so fast that human's can't detect it with a naked eye.

I think it was Maxwell and or Plank who devised a system of mirrors or some shit to measure the speed of light. Light has a definite, finite speed.

 

[tekk]

Consider this...

IF there was a big and and hence a completely different set of physical laws in a plank-length universe before said big bang than any postulation you make on the grounds of the laws based in THIS universe would be worthless. The mathematics which you speak of would be a mess and completely out of order in that universe.

 

[WorldEX]

darkness has no speed because it exists everywhere.only light can travel because it has to have an origin.

I could not put it any better. Poster was really damn bored.

 

[CharlieBrown]

I tried ignoring this post because I thought "NOBODY could be THAT stupid and ill informed to pose such a question!" Then I made the mistake of reading the responses. Don't they teach physics in high school and college any longer?

The worst are the one that pretend some knowledge of physics, so I guess not.

The "problem" confusion on the part of non- science educated persons concerning what a physicist means by "light" and what a lay person means by light.

"Light" for physicist is ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION that propagates at the fix speed in a vacuum following the equations clarified by James Clerk Maxwell. Now this INCLUDES what we call "visible light" as well as radio waves, mircowaves, x-rays and gamma rays. It is NOT what Mom, Pop and the Butcher think of when they say "light" (what is illuminated and visible to the human eye) as opposed to what is not (the "dark").

The "contrast between "light" and "dark" in this regard is one that exists only in the minds of those who completely fail to grasp the basics of the concepts or what they do grasp, understand in a childlike manner.



Learn vector calculus - understand Maxwell's equations- your time will be well spent. But please stop this nonsense - you make yourselves sound very ill informed and unsophisticated.

 

[AllBlackMax]

Haven't read all the responses so it might have already been said:

The speed of darkness can't equal the speed of light because even when there is light there is darkness(or dark matter). In other words if you shine a light in space, darkness(dark matter) doesn't simply disappear; it's still there. ;-) Even within the light there is dark matter.

Remember what quantum mechanics taught you; light behaves as a particle and a wave. There is matter in between those particles which would be dark matter. Imagine a dim light in space; the dark matter is easily visible.

The only way to measure the speed of darkness would be to manipulate it and we haven't figured that out yet.

 

[CharlieBrown]

Haven't read all the responses so it might have already been said:

The speed of darkness can't equal the speed of light because even when there is light there is darkness(or dark matter). In other words if you shine a light in space, darkness(dark matter) doesn't simply disappear; it's still there. ;-) Even within the light there is dark matter.

Remember what quantum mechanics taught you; light behaves as a particle and a wave. There is matter in between those particles which would be dark matter. Imagine a dim light in space; the dark matter is easily visible.

The only way to measure the speed of darkness would be to manipulate it and we haven't figured that out yet.

Oh for goodness sake...! These responses to this "Non-question"... Is THIS the result of science education in our public school system? Thank goodness for China...

 

[sagelike]

Consider this...

IF there was a big and and hence a completely different set of physical laws in a plank-length universe before said big bang than any postulation you make on the grounds of the laws based in THIS universe would be worthless. The mathematics which you speak of would be a mess and completely out of order in that universe.

I'm still rolling with his explanation.

I tried ignoring this post because I thought "NOBODY could be THAT stupid and ill informed to pose such a question!" Then I made the mistake of reading the responses. Don't they teach physics in high school and college any longer?

The worst are the one that pretend some knowledge of physics, so I guess not.

The "problem" confusion on the part of non- science educated persons concerning what a physicist means by "light" and what a lay person means by light.

"Light" for physicist is ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION that propagates at the fix speed in a vacuum following the equations clarified by James Clerk Maxwell. Now this INCLUDES what we call "visible light" as well as radio waves, mircowaves, x-rays and gamma rays. It is NOT what Mom, Pop and the Butcher think of when they say "light" (what is illuminated and visible to the human eye) as opposed to what is not (the "dark").

The "contrast between "light" and "dark" in this regard is one that exists only in the minds of those who completely fail to grasp the basics of the concepts or what they do grasp, understand in a childlike manner.



Learn vector calculus - understand Maxwell's equations- your time will be well spent. But please stop this nonsense - you make yourselves sound very ill informed and unsophisticated.

Instead of trying to play everyone who contributed to thread.
how about you try to answer the question.

The only way to measure the speed of darkness would be to manipulate it and we haven't figured that out yet.

So then I'm missing a standard definition of darkness or in the case "Dark Matter".

How is it defined?

From what it seems it looks like an absolute and an infinite.
I'm not fan of either of those words however I do understand that the theories behind each are highly regarded. But people tend to forget that they are theories and can be proven wrong.

I personally feel that everything has a beginning and end point because we tend to create our own reality.

But I'll let someone answer my question about dark matter.

 

[CharlieBrown]

Instead of trying to play everyone who contributed to thread.
how about you try to answer the question.

Sorry if I sound arrogant. Physics is my field and this is such a NON-question that I am appalled that ANYONE with a 10th grade education is considering it. Everything that can be phrased as a gramatical question isn't a legitimate one. For instance "What is the smell of Blue?" Not a legitimate question - blue is a color not an odor.

Believe me this question is UTTER nonsense - if you asked a physics teacher he would look at you as if you were a epsilon semi-moron.

Worse is the responses. Apparently people have been watching nova or public TV and grasping in a sort of clouded way a few of the phrases an jargon of physics with a very limited and dim understanding of basic concepts. The responses are so far from what is acceptable for basic physics that it is almost impossible to respond.

Please DO NOT attempt to derive any information about physics from this board. It will almost certainly be utter nonsense and will only serve to confuse you regarding the actual state of our current knowlege.

If you are actually interested in the field go to Wolfram's mathworld and Eric Weisstein's World of Physics. For books the will enrich your understanding pick up Lewis Carroll Epstein's "Relativity Visualized"


And PLEASE - DO NOT confuse this nonsense with Dark Matter. This issue of Dark Matter and also Dark Energy ( two VERY different things) are two of the most interesting current problems in physics. THe "Dark" that our poster is asking about and "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" have as much in common as a "House" does to a "Housefly"! or Algebra does to Linear Algebra.

Unfortunately what I see here is a lack of understanding of definitions and lack of understanding of how we use them in the sciences. Most of you are thinking like Liberal Arts Students - we define terms VERY specifically in science and math - never mind what you THINK the common definition is. And often we use the same root word even though the meaning is VERY different ( see Dark Matter and Dark Energy in Eric Weisstein's page). If you fail to grasp this you will make the sort of unacceptable errors this post is FULL of. For example when we say "Work" or "Energy" in physics we don't mean what you probably think we mean. Here's a simple example to a physicist a car driving at a constant speed around a traffic circle (say 10 mph) is undergoing acceleration with all that that implies about force - yet many students still can't grasp why how a car going at a constant speed is accelerating - their layman definition doesn't jibe with the physics definition.

But RUN don't walk from any discussion you will find here or in similiar forums - you will leave dumber than you started. Sorry to be so harsh, but it is the truth

Sorry again - but imagine if you were an auto-mechanic and spent your time learning the ins and outs of your trade and someone suggested a question concerning the "seatbelt IN your CAR-burator" based on his misunderstanding of the use of the letters C-A-R in the word which lead him to think that a tiny copy of the car itself was contained in the carburator. THEN to compound matters everyone started posting their opinions of the "tires" and "license plate number" on the said CAR-burator! None of them having a clue as to the fact that just because it SOUNDS similar it has NOTHING to do with a finished auto nor does that define or in ANY way describe its function. I feel just like that mechanic.

 

[sagelike]

Sorry if I sound arrogant. Physics is my field and this is such a NON-question that I am appalled that ANYONE with a 10th grade education is considering it. Everything that can be phrased as a gramatical question isn't a legitimate one. For instance "What is the smell of Blue?" Not a legitimate question - blue is a color not an odor.

Believe me this question is UTTER nonsense - if you asked a physics teacher he would look at you as if you were a epsilon semi-moron.

Worse is the responses. Apparently people have been watching nova or public TV and grasping in a sort of clouded way a few of the phrases an jargon of physics with a very limited and dim understanding of basic concepts. The responses are so far from what is acceptable for basic physics that it is almost impossible to respond.

Please DO NOT attempt to derive any information about physics from this board. It will almost certainly be utter nonsense and will only serve to confuse you regarding the actual state of our current knowlege.

If you are actually interested in the field go to Wolfram's mathworld and Eric Weisstein's World of Physics. For books the will enrich your understanding pick up Lewis Carroll Epstein's "Relativity Visualized".

But RUN don't walk from any discussion you will find here or in similiar forums - you will leave dumber than you started. Sorry to be so harsh, but it is the truth.

Fair enough.

 

[AllBlackMax]

So, upon more reading darkness and dark matter are 2 different things. The darkness in the original question is describing the absence of light which can't be thought of as en entity of itself.



"The speed of dark matter is about 6 miles per second (9km/s)"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060221_stues_dark_matter.html

Still, what I said earlier wasn't totally off. Parts of my statements were true.

 

[CharlieBrown]

So, upon more reading darkness and dark matter are 2 different things. The darkness in the original question is describing the absence of light which can't be thought of as en entity of itself.



"The speed of dark matter is about 6 miles per second (9km/s)"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060221_stues_dark_matter.html

Still, what I said earlier wasn't totally off. Parts of my statements were true.

Not sure where you are getting this "information" from - It seems they don't understand the issue.

"Dark Matter" refers to thus far unknown matter that influences the shape of galaxies (and the universe) through it's mass (gravity) we know what the galaxies SHOULD look like - but they don't look like that - they look like they would if their was considerably more mass around ( some stuff we can't see and dont know what is it - could be brown dwarfs or subatomic particles or something else!) but it can't be said to have a "speed" any more than a star or an electron have a "speed". Any acceleration they undergo would be the result of a force acting on them and velocity/acceleration would be relative to the position of the observer (unlike electromagnetic radiation).

Be careful of your sources - stick to legit sites like Wolfram's Mathworld or Eric Weisstein's World of physics - they won't steer you wrong.

 

[AllBlackMax]

Ahhh, ok. See, you coulda said that a long time ago and saved us some time.

Not sure where you are getting this "information" from - It seems they don't understand the issue.

"Dark Matter" refers to thus far unknown matter that influences the shape of galaxies (and the universe) through it's mass (gravity) we know what the galaxies SHOULD look like - but they don't look like that - they look like they would if their was considerably more mass around ( some stuff we can't see and dont know what is it - could be brown dwarfs or subatomic particles or something else!) but it can't be said to have a "speed" any more than a star or an electron have a "speed". Any acceleration they undergo would be the result of a force acting on them and velocity/acceleration would be relative to the position of the observer (unlike electromagnetic radiation).

Be careful of your sources - stick to legit sites like Wolfram's Mathworld or Eric Weisstein's World of physics - they won't steer you wrong.

 

[CharlieBrown]

Ahhh, ok. See, you coulda said that a long time ago and saved us some time.

You're right - I need to calm down - I probably sound like some kid who gets exasperated at his parents for not knowing the rules of his video game (something they are only remotely interested in!) - my apologies to all.

 

[Bigmanblack]

funny post in this thread

 

[Rawness]

THe "Dark" that our poster is asking about and "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" have as much in common as a "House" does to a "Housefly"! or Algebra does to Linear Algebra.

I feel you B, but Algebra and Linear Algebra have plenty in common. In fact, it's when people understand that is when Linear Algebra starts to become a lot easier.

 

[sean69]

I tried ignoring this post because I thought "NOBODY could be THAT stupid and ill informed to pose such a question!" Then I made the mistake of reading the responses. Don't they teach physics in high school and college any longer?

The worst are the one that pretend some knowledge of physics, so I guess not.

The "problem" confusion on the part of non- science educated persons concerning what a physicist means by "light" and what a lay person means by light.

"Light" for physicist is ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION that propagates at the fix speed in a vacuum following the equations clarified by James Clerk Maxwell. Now this INCLUDES what we call "visible light" as well as radio waves, mircowaves, x-rays and gamma rays. It is NOT what Mom, Pop and the Butcher think of when they say "light" (what is illuminated and visible to the human eye) as opposed to what is not (the "dark").

The "contrast between "light" and "dark" in this regard is one that exists only in the minds of those who completely fail to grasp the basics of the concepts or what they do grasp, understand in a childlike manner.



Learn vector calculus - understand Maxwell's equations- your time will be well spent. But please stop this nonsense - you make yourselves sound very ill informed and unsophisticated.

Sorry if I sound arrogant. Physics is my field and this is such a NON-question that I am appalled that ANYONE with a 10th grade education is considering it. Everything that can be phrased as a gramatical question isn't a legitimate one. For instance "What is the smell of Blue?" Not a legitimate question - blue is a color not an odor.

Believe me this question is UTTER nonsense - if you asked a physics teacher he would look at you as if you were a epsilon semi-moron.

Worse is the responses. Apparently people have been watching nova or public TV and grasping in a sort of clouded way a few of the phrases an jargon of physics with a very limited and dim understanding of basic concepts. The responses are so far from what is acceptable for basic physics that it is almost impossible to respond.

Please DO NOT attempt to derive any information about physics from this board. It will almost certainly be utter nonsense and will only serve to confuse you regarding the actual state of our current knowlege.

If you are actually interested in the field go to Wolfram's mathworld and Eric Weisstein's World of Physics. For books the will enrich your understanding pick up Lewis Carroll Epstein's "Relativity Visualized"


And PLEASE - DO NOT confuse this nonsense with Dark Matter. This issue of Dark Matter and also Dark Energy ( two VERY different things) are two of the most interesting current problems in physics. THe "Dark" that our poster is asking about and "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" have as much in common as a "House" does to a "Housefly"! or Algebra does to Linear Algebra.

Unfortunately what I see here is a lack of understanding of definitions and lack of understanding of how we use them in the sciences. Most of you are thinking like Liberal Arts Students - we define terms VERY specifically in science and math - never mind what you THINK the common definition is. And often we use the same root word even though the meaning is VERY different ( see Dark Matter and Dark Energy in Eric Weisstein's page). If you fail to grasp this you will make the sort of unacceptable errors this post is FULL of. For example when we say "Work" or "Energy" in physics we don't mean what you probably think we mean. Here's a simple example to a physicist a car driving at a constant speed around a traffic circle (say 10 mph) is undergoing acceleration with all that that implies about force - yet many students still can't grasp why how a car going at a constant speed is accelerating - their layman definition doesn't jibe with the physics definition.

But RUN don't walk from any discussion you will find here or in similiar forums - you will leave dumber than you started. Sorry to be so harsh, but it is the truth

Sorry again - but imagine if you were an auto-mechanic and spent your time learning the ins and outs of your trade and someone suggested a question concerning the "seatbelt IN your CAR-burator" based on his misunderstanding of the use of the letters C-A-R in the word which lead him to think that a tiny copy of the car itself was contained in the carburator. THEN to compound matters everyone started posting their opinions of the "tires" and "license plate number" on the said CAR-burator! None of them having a clue as to the fact that just because it SOUNDS similar it has NOTHING to do with a finished auto nor does that define or in ANY way describe its function. I feel just like that mechanic.

From a chemist and physics enthusiast, thank you for this. I was reading some of the responses like

This thread was doomed right from the OP question.