Prior to the December 1989 edition of the NSRCA Newsletter, mankind has enjoyed thousands of years as a race of thinkers believing that light was some medium, whether a magical force or the visible portion of an electromagnetic wavelength, that upon its interaction with all other known matter, created a phenomenon known as optics. Call it a mechanical property of a luminous body (Descartes) or one of five fundamental tanmatra (Samkhya school), it was widely accepted that light carried energy and darkness was simply the absence of said light.
Then December 1989 comes, and we are exposed to a theory that tests all claims, the seemingly laughable Dark Sucker Theory. The Dark Sucker Theory states that any given source of light “[doesn’t] emit light; [it] sucks dark. Thus we call these [sources] dark suckers.” This theory focuses on three main points: darkness is existent, darkness has a mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light. In all the evidence supplied by the Newsletter’s article, who could really argue such a theory? This writer can.
One must understand that the experience of darkness is caused by the absence of visible light. When light is not present, rod and cone cells are not stimulated, thus making photoreceptor cells unable to distinguish color frequency and wavelength, thus giving the appearance of blackness in a space. If the appearance of darkness is merely one created by components of the human eye as a result of the absence of light, then darkness as a form of matter cannot exist, and subsequently does not have mass or speed comparable to light.
As if that doesn’t make this article seem more than pure bunk, one may notice that the true author of this article refuses to claim it, thereby leaving his name out of the Newsletter. Perhaps that was done with good reason.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document