quote:

---

Originally posted by dethfire
there is no such thing as speed of darkness, if there was they'd be the same speed as light

How come then that a shadow is seen racing across a lanscape, would this not also apply to a mass in space say like our moon, its shadow is evidence that light is the cause of the shadow due to the mass of the moon blocking the light , this light being blocked by the moon's mass then implies that darkness has a speed yet darkness is itself made up of nothing but it has a speed at which complies with the speed of light.

Consider this , light has a gentle pressure yet in a weightless environment it is a trememdouse force , considering then the weakness of gravity then light has an inverse square law and not only exists as stated before but it is stronger than gravity.

This light pressure then being blocked by our moon upon the earth's surface or seas should I say is then the reason why our tides rise by releasing the pressure of light upon our earth which I add that light is everywhere and therefor hits our planet spherically all over, the moons presence then will release the pressure , this is the reason or should I say the invisible bond that holds mass in orbits, our earth then also has an area I call the spherical shadow boundary , ie the earth being spherical then light will create a sherical shadow because light is hitting the earth from all over , mass then entering this shadow boundary then seccumbs to what some think is the attraction of the earths mass , the reality is that light is what keeps everything in levitation and the blocking of light by mass then means that smaller masses will not be spherically hit by the pressure of light and hence they fall to the larger mass .

So that nobody becomes confused here then I refer to smaller masses such as meteors , these then landing in the shadow boundary will then take longer to travel the length of the shadow by which case then they will curve towards the earth because they could not make it pass fast enough , our moon then also having its own shadow boundary then finds a balance with the earth and hence its reason why it orbits .
For those who do not know , then I can assure you that light also hits the sun and this will be backed by science .

Some will wonder why I am sure that einstein is wrong , I have already mentioned that mass such as the sun cannot warp its surrounding space by which einstein's GR is built upon because space is nothing but space just like the shadow , we see it yet it has no material existence .

Now then consider then that the sun has only one mass and if einstein was right that mass could warp space then the sun's mass could only do this as a whole , ie the planets all have different orbits and hence the sun having an effect upon space can only do this by warping an entire area, if this were true then all the planets would orbit the circumference of that warpage , ie they would surely all follow in a circular path but they do not , in short then what is it that actually bonds the planets around our sun's warpage if einstein is right?.

The fact is that the pressure of light or should I say the electromagnetic spectrum also hitting the sun means that it has the same effects as our moon upon the earths sea's .
There is a star called SS433 called the cosmic sprinkler , this has a small mass orbiting this star which some believe is a blackhole , the reason being is that jets of gamma rays are seen emminating now and then as this small mass reaches a close orbit of SS433 .
The process is not understood but I feel that the small mass entering such a close orbit is then close enough to block the pressure of light upon the stars surface and hence the reason why a stream of material is seen shooting outwards from SS433 that creates an accreation disk around the small mass , this accreation disk of hot material will then heat the small mass which I believe is a supernova remnant such as a nuetron star or pulsar , its material then being subjected to such high concentrations of heat will then cause the remnant to have its material eject high energy rays, considering then the circumstances of the origin of this remnant then its material would also carry a high density hence it would be acting as a concentrated energy pellet compared to the size of SS433.

I shall add that recently some planetary objects were and have been observed in space having no stars by which they orbit , these have been called free floaters , planets that have been detected having no solar sytem , it has confused science yet again .

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/4/10/2
__________________
If we understood the universe then the phenomena would not exist !

True darkness is emptiness, meaning a nothing. That is not in our universe. Atoms and pieces of atoms all have light, no matter how small. We live in the light spectrum, that is why light shines thru less light. If we lived in empty darkness, the light would be blocked and not have any thing to go thru.

quote:

---

Originally posted by crossingstar
True darkness is emptiness, meaning a nothing. That is not in our universe. Atoms and pieces of atoms all have light, no matter how small. We live in the light spectrum, that is why light shines thru less light. If we lived in empty darkness, the light would be blocked and not have any thing to go thru.

Exactly ! Mass blocks light hence the attraction of mass is nothing , mass prevents the pressure of light upon mass and this is the cause of attraction.Mass releasing the pressure of light upon mass such as our moon upon the earth then would have a cause why the tides rise.

If we take away light then everything would fall to a given point or it would simply fall through an endless empty void forever as far as I can make out.
__________________
If we understood the universe then the phenomena would not exist !

Hi,
I would have to disagree, mass is mases of diferent density. If you use your hand to block a flashlight then you are absorbing or deflecting the atoms that are being propelled that makes the light. If light that is made up of atoms traveled to true emptiness, a atom could protrude in but do to no gravity at all, could do no more. Wouldnt fall, couldnt travel any futher then that because it would need something to push against. No propulsion system would work.
Shadows or less atoms by blocking them but not the absence of them completely so then not total darkness. Nothing comes close to it even, not even experiments can produce it.
Some guy wrote a book about nothingness, is a big book I think considering the topic. :+)

About the moon and tides, could be a couple of theories possible I think. Your theory sounds just as good. I am looking into early planet stages or I would explore that area further. You could make another forum on it.

Yes sure I will , I am rather busy at the moment, but I shall give an alternative view on my website which should cover the planet origins etc , pop over now and then if you wish , I cannot say it is correct but it is an alternative view that may give you and others a means to look at things in a new light and is the reason why I teach what views I have. http://www.spaceskeptic.com


__________________
If we understood the universe then the phenomena would not exist !

my mindless opinion.

darkness needs light to have speed.it travels only when light expands and contracts.darkness has no properties,therefore it cant travel unless light is itroduced.
darkness is the opposite of light.light travels,darkness cant.

I have not seen light on the periodic table lately?
I guess we forgot that light is made up of photons that do not have mass and is the main reason light can travel at 186,000 miles per second.
Darkness is the result of no photons illuminating a volume of space and that is it.
Maybe you are thinking of the mysterious dark matter that is presumably abundant throughout the Universe and might be the missing link these cosmologist have been looking for to explain the rate of expansion.
David'.'

Atoms are mass, light is propelled atoms. But the word darkness is being used to mean less light, when it should be meaning complete emptiness of light. If the black matter is empty darkness I would think it would be broken spots in our universe and nothing goes in or out. So we would be like clumps of atoms floating on top of a dark matter pond. But I think it is probably of one of the other possible explanations.

Hi crossingstar,
Light does not consist of atoms or you would be able to weigh it.
As with not seeing light on the periodical table I have also not seen a scale that can measure light's weight because light has no mass.Why?Photons.
David'.'