Mike,i just posted this elsewhere but i am going to put it in my header as i realize how the word DARK/DARKNESS is being misunderstood.
i blame science for the terrinble choice of words, they should just said UNKNOWN MATTER and UNKNOWN MATTER, but this terrible term got embedded because at first a would bet 90% of cosmologisyt/physicist thought "this stuff" was but non-light emitting elemental mass. That view has been annihilated except the scientist that are of the type that rejected Copernicus, or called Pasteur crazy, this type of doltheaded scientist will always be a part of the scientific community when science is in REVOLUTION.Max
The post:
**********************************************************
IMPORTANT/VITAL: <<I am always interested in the dark side for one has to understand that>>. The word Dark in Dark Matter and Dark Energy are terrible terms, TERRIBLE terms, amd must NOT as they be confused with darkness in the sense that people generally interpret that word.
You have excellent recall , so embed what am sharing with you now into your data base.
i will enhance my communcations by going to the Nobel Laureate in physics that shared in the Nobel Prize for proving the existence of Dark Energy.
But first remember the words darkness/dark essential secondary meaning is "To be clueless" "To have NO idea what something is actually"
The fact Dark Matter/Dark Energy can indeed be light, but OUTSIDE of the spectrum to what humans can preceive.
The darkness is only because we can't see it, and is classified as non-baryonic, that not being elemental mass and not immanating light within the human spectrum of light.
In taking the view it is the "darkside" is a preconception that what we perceive is the lightside(that good side).
It is possible we live/exist in a low subterranan dimension, and what you define as darkside is actually the dimension that you perceive and view as reality, but is not The Reality.
i am working here, as i am trying TO TEACH.
And i have FAILED UTTERLY if you think what i talking of is the "dark-side"---- and i would have failed UTTERLY in trying to communicate what is happening here.
quote then source !!!!!<<''Dark,'' cosmologists call it, in what could go down in history as the ultimate semantic surrender. This is not ''dark'' as in distant or invisible. This is ''dark'' as in unknown for now, and possibly forever.
If so, such a development would presumably not be without philosophical consequences of the civilization-altering variety. Cosmologists often refer to this possibility as ''the ultimate Copernican revolution'': not only are we not at the center of anything; we're not even made of the same stuff as most of the rest of everything. ''We're just a bit of pollution,'' Lawrence M. Krauss, a theorist at Case Western Reserve, said not long ago at a public panel on cosmology in Chicago. ''If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant.'' >>!!!!!
Message 23591199
It is ALL inside those words, i have done ALL that i can to clarify this.
As a teacher, i will say, it is now your responsibilty to understand. Max, and hoping you get what i am saying:)
i will be putting this on my thread but will edit out your name, i don't want you to think i am picking on you, i would bet 99.9% of people perceive the word DARK incorrectly. This "ultimate semantic SURRENDER" |
