Dark Sucking Theory ?

I am sure some of you had heard about the Dark Sucking Theory, I looked for it online, and I found the very same definition keep coming up
as if it's copy from the same copy. I wonder if it's just a Joke, or it's really a Theory found by some boring scientist ?

And what do you guys thing? Do you believe in it?

just wonder, because to me it sounds possible, but I just can't find anything that can prove that.

Anyone have any ideas? :thinking::thinking:

And if this Dark Sucking Theory is in fact true, then what can we get from that?

Its a joke
similar to the joke about electronic stuff running on magic smoke

I see... thanks, been wondering about that

>> I wonder if it's just a Joke, or it's really a Theory found by some boring scientist?

It's really the boring theory found by some joking scientist.

No no, this is really true. The next time you are at the bal park at night, look up at the "lights" and you can see the inky darkness that has been extracted from the field expelled out the back of the lights. The theory is similar to a refrigerator e4xtracting heat from insdie the box and expelling it outside (you can test this one at home).

That's funny. If this were true, you could not see a light bulb emit light in a room where all surfaces are mirrors.

It does make you stop and think though and I am all for anything that makes me ponder how stuff works.

It sounds like a joke to me...

I'm not a scientist of any kind, but I'm pretty sure it contradicts with our current knowledge of physics, including the existence of photons.

Furthermore, if darkness has mass, and light sources suck darkness, then wouldn't our flashlights get heavier after many uses?
And why would it take energy to create light and it takes no energy to create darkness aka. absence of light?

How about colors of light? Radio waves etc.

PhillyRube said:

No no, this is really true. The next time you are at the bal park at night, look up at the "lights" and you can see the inky darkness that has been extracted from the field expelled out the back of the lights. The theory is similar to a refrigerator e4xtracting heat from insdie the box and expelling it outside (you can test this one at home).

Click to expand...

This is not quite what is happening, the refrigerator extracts heat through the evaporator coil inside the cabinet as the refrigerant(freon) changes its state from a liquid to a gas & than transfers the heat through its refrigerant, the gas is compressed by the compressor pistons and moves to another coil where the refrigerant changes from a gas back to a liquid in the condensing coil, releasing its heat and is blown away from the refrigerator by a fan. Besides, that theory is preposterous and flies in the face of known science.

I don't understand how anyone could consider the 'dark sucking' theory remotely plausible?

What could you propose as a baseline for absolute absence of darkness/100% light? Darkness must be the absence of light and not vice versa, is this not obvious?

Seeing is expressed subjectively as a mentally constructed representation of the outside world, but it is ultimately a physiological process. It is a process which is possible only through the transduction to electro-physiological potentials (in the brain) of physical stimulus input. For 'dark sucking' to be plausible you would have to believe that dark is some sort of physical stimulus in itself and light is it's absence. This is not only patently not the case empirically (e.g we cannot see in complete darkness), but wouldn't make sense conceptually either; as mentioned earlier, where would you draw the line at absolute full brightness/the complete absence of darkness? It simply makes no sense.. That said, there has been some confusion over the point in the past, e.g. in Genesis where it is suggested that both light and dark exist in their own right as opponent entities, however it is now clearly evident, and I had thought universally acknowledged, that dark is simply the absence of light.

sounds like BS to me and there may be a DARK SUCKER born avery day

I am not sure, I was wondering if there's indeed such theory ?
Not sure if it's possible, but it sounds interesting, darknes is simply
the absence of light makes things much easier to understand, but
I think we should open to other theories... as long as they can prove it...

So I guess this is not true at all? or someone really did this research?
I just can't seems to find more information about this.

No, it is entirely impossible and has been considered such by mainstream science for centuries. That is why it was a joke, because it is so ridiculous.

I can't find "dark sucking theory" with google but I can find "dark sucker theory". I think that should have been a clue as to whether or not it's a joke.

darkness = no light = photons doesn't exist
how would one suck on something that that doesn't exist?

One of the foundations of the joke is that the roles of light and dark are reversed, e.g. darkness is matter 'darkons' and light is the absence of them. It's a relatively elaborate joke for so clearly ridiculous an idea, but it does worry me that some people could actually consider it plausible.

If a lightbulb's job was to absorb darkons, then why would it look brighter than its surroundings. It would look darker.

I think this is definitely is a joke.

Like last week when I told my 12 year old nephew..."If you put batteries in the flashlight backwards, it throws shadows on the wall"

B.B. said:

I think this is definitely is a joke.

Like last week when I told my 12 year old nephew..."If you put batteries in the flashlight backwards, it throws shadows on the wall"

Click to expand...

No, that one's absolutely true!

ma_sha1 said:

darkness = no light = photons doesn't exist
how would one suck on something that that doesn't exist?

Click to expand...

Thats what she said