black light

[Pig]

I would normaly not do that on a game forum, but it looks to me anything goes in here, so I will try.

science becomes ridiculous when it finds a purpose in NOT discovering some things. Ca anyone share his opinion about the following word/s?

"black light"

Please avoid the UV , its called also black light even if its not at all black. I ask about the possible opposite of light as a concept

Why does a pig ask that? I've found out I am a bio experiment, my parents are not PIGS as i thought they should be, but a vial and an electrick shock. My brain is oversized and thinks of such ridiculous things such as what balances light. I saw something interesting here, light, balance and dark principles. I am not sure how to use them in game, but if I am allowed I would like to talk about this not game related.

*oink to u 2

[Ravenstrider]

I'd recommend looking into dark energy... That's what the words remind me of... That and the darkness principle in MD...

[Kyphis the Bard]

I know I am not ontopic here (Eh, offtopic section, what ya' gonna do?), but just a friendly reminder the Forum is not for RP.

Very interesting question, though.

[Shadowseeker]

Well, seeing as it is in offtopic..

Why call it "dark" light if you mean the total opposite and as such is not light at all?

[Maebius]

[quote name='Shadowseeker' timestamp='1296733977' post='78403']
Well, seeing as it is in offtopic..

Why call it "dark" light if you mean the total opposite and as such is not light at all?
[/quote]

Written with my dad when I was in my early-mid teens as a "sit around at midnight watching dumb USA-Today movies and bored:

http://everthorn.net/musings/2009/04/dark-suckers/?p=388

Excerpt:
For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don’t emit light,…….they suck Dark. Thus we should call these bulbs Dark suckers. The dark sucker theory proves the existence of Dark, that Dark has mass heavier than light, and that Dark is faster than light.

The basis of the Dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck Dark. Take for example, the Dark suckers in the room where you are. There is much less Dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark sucker, the greater it’s ability to suck Dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As 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 black spot[s] on a full Dark sucker. A candle is a primitive Dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice

[Pig]

But but...oooohhhh....
Can this "dark sucking" be explained at a physical level? Or is it just an other philosophical view that sees "dark" as equal to light and not just its absence? My pig senses tell me that dark is not the opposite of light.

[Maebius]

[quote name='Pig' timestamp='1296753806' post='78416']
But but...oooohhhh....
Can this "dark sucking" be explained at a physical level? Or is it just an other philosophical view that sees "dark" as equal to light and not just its absence? My pig senses tell me that dark is not the opposite of light.
[/quote]

My little musing from years ago presumes that Light is simply the absence of Dark. Dark is the physical thing, which we saw more as "heavy matter", or Ether that pervaded and made up what was essentially the fundamental fabric of space. (like the "Ether" concept was in centuries past) and the perception of Light was just not having Dark in view.
greater ponderings howeve,r could not resolve the paradox of photons being detected and having "force/mass" unless Dark was an attractive Sludge, and having it sucked caused an oppositely vectored force, when the "attraction/tension" was relieved.

Was fun to ponder though, as your Original Post also questions....

[xrieg]

Wikipedia: '(...) In physics, the term light often comprises the adjacent radiation regions of infrared (at lower frequencies) and ultraviolet (at higher), not visible to the human eye.(...)' So, technically speaking and accepting your UV prejudice, the close IR can be called light and is invisible/ black to human eye. I hope the answer is satisfactory.
PS Light (including black I think) is dicsussed in detail by Mr Pratchett in his multivolume research papers

Edited February 3, 2011 by xrieg

[Malaikat Maut]

Light is composed of physical particles known as photons. Photons exhibit a property known as duality, meaning that they behave both as a wave and as a particle under certain circumstances. Regardless though, light is a "physical" entity. "Dark" is more of an abstract...it's the opposite of light and electromagnetic radiation. It's the absence of photons. Plain and simple.

Look into a theoretical concept known as a black body. Perhaps it may give you some more to ponder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

[xrieg]

Huh BBR was also my first consideration - but it emits 'black light' only in a sense that it does not scatter light (standard mechanism) only emits thermal radiation (which, in turn, may include quite a lot of visible light depending on T)