Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro
Wouldn't the "speed of darK" equal the speed of light, as for it to be dark, the light has to leave, and it can only leave at the speed of light. You can only have an absence of light at the speed it takes for light to be removed.
|
Who knows? I did it to screw with him.
I was mostly dumbfounded that he so strongly believed what he had learned, that during the conversation he relied on Einstein as if it were some kind of irrefutable scripture. He constantly brought it up, as if there was no possible way that he could be wrong (not that he was or wasn't, but science is about questioning, not accepting).
To answer your question with the same logic I used against him, the problem is that you can't quantify dark. It's like infinity or omnipresent. Yes, we know infinity means "it goes on forever", but it's an intangible concept. A light beam is made up of stuff, just like air is made up of stuff. Those are tangible and can be quantified, even though we used to believe otherwise.
You can see dark, but only in the context of light. You can picture infinity, but only because of finality. You can picture omnipresence, but only because space is a tangible concept. What is nothing? The absence of something. However you can't measure nothing, while you can measure something. This does not mean nothing exists, but only that you have no way of proving or disproving it. At best you can define nothing around something, for instance you can define the lack of something in the area of something. However, you still cannot quantify what the nothing inside that something is.
And upon rereading what I just wrote....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahan
You reminded me of a Pratchett quote :
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
|
Oh that is good. I'll remember that one.