Misconstrued Thoughts : Yesterday's Misconstrued Thoughts Today

Thanks for the links. Now it all makes sense.

Apropos.

----
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.

The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light. First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much
greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.

So 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 dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.

A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.

Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper,
you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. That is why it is called light.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.
----

Could be I guess.

Just wanted to point out that Jon's rant was one of the more ingenious points I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Yet again, Jon, you have made an interestingly complicated subject and perverted it to such a simple point that it almost seems plausible. Kudos to you.
On another note, it is true that photons cancel each other out, correct? I understand the thought behind the picture you have on the site - with the flashlight going through the slats - but I am under the impression that if you have four slats you will only see two (or less than the amount you have with two slats, anyways) light beams on the wall behind. The theory behind this is that there are unseen photons blocking those that can be seen?
This might not be entirely accurate, but I have the info at home and am at work right now. Anyone mind explaining this to me fully?

The only reason I ask is because I have been told diffraction doesn't entirely explain why this occurs. It appears certain restrictions should occur because of photons intersecting, but others that should not intersect reportedly "disappear" with no "seen" photons interacting with them.

basically the slats is explained by wave theory... tis just the highs and lows of like say a sinusoidal curve, opposites cancel each other out. The same is true of sound, and the easiest way to explain why someone always complains about the sound at the assembly. With all the speakers, somewhere its going to be loud, other places equivealently queit.

You cant get around it.

Here is a page that brings this wave model down to the photon, which acts like a wave, and therefore, if biased just a bit, there is an interfernce pattern. So what you refer to is somewhat true... its not opposite charges like matter and antimatter, its more a differnce in waveform... offset by half the wavelength.

oh and jon... nice copy paste technique.

Jon (with no "h"),

Where was that text originally from?

Great stuff.

D.A.

Here is the guy who originally dreamed this all up, read to your hearts content. Amazing the wasted time available... I call it the I have an everlasting bank of time theory....

Okay, I already understand the whole cancelling bit, but where do "normal" quantum physics buffs think these "hidden"photons come from? Of course we've heard the theory that they exist in alternate "nows", time periods and dimensions, but is there more to this that isn't being said? I guess what I'm asking is this: is there another explanation to the fact that photons are cancelled out when they shouldn't be, and that scientists really don't understand why?

Please take into consideration that I really have no education, so if anything is a little off base bare with me - I'm simple...

well basically it is a matter of being beyond what we view as normal.. quantum theory, no matter how much i've studied i can say has never been intuitive, if you go to the page with all the math... basically that math defines by means of probabilities and such the existance of what things are. In other words, its there in the models... and the only way we, in our preconception of our universe, can comprend (unless you get a PhD in nuclear physics/modern physics) is the description as set forth in wave paricle theory.

sometimes it acts as a wave, sometimes as a particle, but it isnt both. Which is what you are hoping to assume.

Man. This makes me dread the start of the semester. Well, not really. And Jon, you're a total poser. Not just any poser, a POS3R!!!111!

I liked a point that was brought out at our Watchtower study...you know the law of entropy? I'm actually not too sure if it's a law, per-say, but anyway...it's described "the disorder of a system, said always to increase with time " "The gradual "winding down" of the universe."...in other words, if anything is left alone it will break down...a new car left to sit in a driveway will eventually be in a state of dis-repair, a house not kept up will eventually rot and fall down...etc etc.

The law applies to the entire universe. If it's not kept up, then it will fall into disorder and disrepair. But the obvious fact that planets aren't slowing down in their revolutions,ceasing to rotate, or suddenly bumping into other planets/stars/moons... that everything in the universe(stars, planets, galaxies) all have their SET positions or rotations that NEVER faulter. The universe is maintained perfectly, precisely and is not breaking down. So that, coupled with the suggestion that the universe is in fact expanding, would lead you to reasoning that someone is in control of maintaining all of it...it MUST have a Creator, Jehovah.

The conclusion of the matter: it's a gem of a point for the ministry!

Why does everyone think I was trying to take credit for that? I never said I was. And when I want to take credit for something, I totally do. Look at some of the essays I've actually written. I happened to spy it on the hard drive today and was like, Hey, people will be amused by this because of the topic at MT today. So yeah. Leave me alone.

So basically the models say they are there - but they really may not be there since sometimes (sorry to step on toes here) the math is wrong....

I always was confused as to exactly why some people thought this was their catalyst to explaing things such as time travel and alternante universes. I read a book once - trying to find the name of it for you - that dealt a lot with Hawkins, Einstiens multiple theories and some other stuff which pointed to beliefs on these things. I've always been a huge fan of Quantum Physics but never had the PHD thing happening - or the whole GED thing for that matter. Remember, I'm simple... Still very interested in the whole Quantum Computer bit though - anything with that kind of power is my friend.

reading all this math really makes me miss my calculus classes (and no, iam not joking)

Ah nina what you describe is the second law of thermodynamics (read more... be smarter ... yay). Its funny thermodynamics has only 2 laws... well 3 if you include the 0th law, but for some reason you can still write books 1000's of pages long on these 2 laws.

And keats, yes the math is always wrong for its always simply a model. When you go beyond your fingers, well we are estimating, Unless you cut one finger off then you would be estimating what part of the stub is left.

and Jon, I know you knew, as did I know, so now everyone knows, and well who knew it would be all that.

Ouch...my brain hurts a little, I thought I escaped this stuff...reminds me of my last math class in school, where on the 1st day of class the professor goes..."The good news is that there are no tests or a final in this class, but the bad news is that you will never be given a problem to do that you can solve in under an hour"...thanks for bringing up painful memories