Topic: The speed of dark
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc started this discussion 3 weeks ago #137,622
A shadow can travel faster than light.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,457,509
Shadows don't travel.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 51 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,514
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,518
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,526
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,527
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Shadow is nothing, it's what we call it when light isn't there.
Shadow is nothing, it's what we call it when light isn't there.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,530
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,531
And if it does move across a surface, can it move faster than light would move?
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,543
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,559
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,560
Because think about it, what does location even mean? Darkness doesn’t move relative to what exactly? What does it mean for darkness to stay in the same place? What does it actually mean for an object to not be moving? Because think about it, what does it mean to not be moving for physical objects? If you sit in a chair, you think you’re not moving, but the Earth is moving. But why is the Earth moving? Because it’s orbiting the sun. But the sun is orbiting the galaxy. But the galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies, it’s getting closer to Andromeda. If you’re moving at a constant speed you don’t feel it. So how do you know everything in the universe on average isn’t moving at a constant speed relative to space? How would you know? How do we know if anything is moving or is not moving if it’s not accelerating?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,561
How do we know that every galaxy everywhere in the entire universe isn’t moving to the left at a constant 5 miles per hour? Maybe they are. Can you prove they’re not? If it is the case you wouldn’t be able to detect it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,562
So if you don’t know if matter is moving, the absence of matter is just the space between physical things. So if you don’t know if the physical things are moving, how do you know if the nothingness between them is moving or not? Because what does moving mean? You can only move relative to something else. Maybe space has some invisible grid we don’t know about with an origin. If that origin moves relative to us to the left, how do you know if we’re staying still and space is moving or if space is staying still and we’re moving to the right? Maybe nothingness occupies a location in space, and space is moving so the nothingness is moving. Who knows?
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,568
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,569
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,570
If you think about it, empty space with nothing in it is a thing that exists and it can have properties even if it doesn’t have anything in it. Two magnets can be attracted to each other without any medium between them. So the space must have some properties associated with it. There’s gravity in empty space too. Just because there’s nothing there that’s physical doesn’t mean that the absence of a thing isn’t a thing.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,571
At least I would argue that a shadow is a thing, the absence of a thing can be categorized as a thing.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,572
Like you could say a shadow exists at a location even though it consists of nothing, but the absence of a thing could be at a different location later. Even if it doesn’t violate physics because that doesn’t transfer information, it’s still something you could categorize and describe as if it were a thing. Which is why we have a word for it and we call it a shadow.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,573
Or you could make an argument for example, that a cup doesn’t have a hole in it, because the hole is just the absence of the cup, so it’s not there. But nobody says that though because the absence of a thing can be a thing and can have its own properties.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,574
But then I guess there’s the question of what defines what. Because either way it kinda makes sense in the cup example. Maybe the absence is more important than the presence.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,575
Space is a thing and space can move faster than the speed of light, so objects in space can move faster than light relative to each other as long as they’re not moving faster than light relative to the space that they’re in. Distant galaxies move faster than light relative to us.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,577
@1,457,569 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> it didn’t exist then it would be there.
Incorrect, if it doesn't exist it wouldn't be there.
And it's not.
> it didn’t exist then it would be there.
Incorrect, if it doesn't exist it wouldn't be there.
And it's not.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,578
@1,457,574 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
This question defines you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Dark
The entire premise of this book is that asking what the speed of dark is, is something an autist would do.
This question defines you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Dark
The entire premise of this book is that asking what the speed of dark is, is something an autist would do.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,599
@1,457,530 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No mass or energy: Darkness is just the absence of photons (light particles).No physical speed: Because darkness is not an object, it cannot travel, push, or bounce like real matter. Instant appearance: When a light turns off, darkness does not travel into the room; the light simply stops being there
No mass or energy: Darkness is just the absence of photons (light particles).No physical speed: Because darkness is not an object, it cannot travel, push, or bounce like real matter. Instant appearance: When a light turns off, darkness does not travel into the room; the light simply stops being there
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 56 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,604
I don't know, Jamaica was in last place on that one race.Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,628
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,629
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,630
@1,457,599 (H)
> When a light turns off, darkness does not travel into the room;
You could argue that it does. When you turn off the light, you could imagine it like turning off a faucet. If you were standing up, and you had a cup of water, and you poured that cup of water on the floor, when you stop pouring, if you watched it in slow motion, the steam of water (analogous to a beam of light) will shrink from the top down to the floor. So the region of space between the cup and the top of the stream of water will grow as if it was extending out from the end of the cup. So you could make an argument that when you turn off a bulb, the darkness does extend out starting at the light and it follows the exact path that light would follow at the speed of light as if it were light being emitted from the bulb.
> When a light turns off, darkness does not travel into the room;
You could argue that it does. When you turn off the light, you could imagine it like turning off a faucet. If you were standing up, and you had a cup of water, and you poured that cup of water on the floor, when you stop pouring, if you watched it in slow motion, the steam of water (analogous to a beam of light) will shrink from the top down to the floor. So the region of space between the cup and the top of the stream of water will grow as if it was extending out from the end of the cup. So you could make an argument that when you turn off a bulb, the darkness does extend out starting at the light and it follows the exact path that light would follow at the speed of light as if it were light being emitted from the bulb.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,631
For example, imagine you had a really bright light on the moon so bright you could see it from Earth. If you turn the light on, it takes 1.3 seconds for the light to reach Earth. If you turn the light off, it still takes 1.3 seconds for the dark to reach Earth. So you could actually say darkness does travel by technicality.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,633
If you think about it, sure the darkness isn’t photons, but there’s no reason why you can’t encode information using the absence of photons. Imagine Morse code but you invert the signal so that instead of the presence of energy being a dot or a dash, when you turn off the light it’s a dot or a dash depending on how long you turned the light off. You could say that you’re sending information via darkness, and it takes 1.3 seconds to get your darkness from the moon to earth.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,634
The technicality is that if you had two points on the surface of the moon, point A and point B, you could sweep a shadow from point A to point B from earth faster than the speed of light if you had a weird setup where there was a light behind you. But it doesn’t break the laws of physics because you aren’t sending information between point A and point B faster than the speed of light.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,635
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,651
@previous (B)
If you studied something that convinced you that a noun isn’t a thing, you may have studied bullshit.
If you studied something that convinced you that a noun isn’t a thing, you may have studied bullshit.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,652
The absence of matter is a thing that does exist. If there’s distance between the stars, that distance does exist. There’s a distance between us and the sun. You can observe that, you can’t just jump from here to Mars because the space between us doesn’t exist. The void doesn’t not exist because it doesn’t have anything in it. A point in space doesn’t need to have matter in it for it to have a location and a shape. You can bend empty space, empty space can have forces. Empty space is a thing and it does exist. The material world we experience isn’t the true underlying nature of reality. Physical objects only seem to be solid because of electromagnetism. Electrons repel each other, that’s the only reason why objects don’t want to be in the same place at the same time. Photons actually can be in the same place at the same time.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,457,653
There is a possibility that there is matter that has mass that doesn’t interact with any of the matter that we can interact with except for gravitationally. There are things that do exist that aren’t "material."