Richard: If there are infinite stars – and therefore infinite light – there
is also infinite space – and therefore infinite dark – which means that one argument cancels the other out. Which is probably why the night
sky looks as it does – a nice balance – and a rather pretty display at that.
Konrad: Well, well. Your resources to find new arguments is apparently
another infinity in you. Now, what is wrong with this argument? To begin with, darkness is the absence of light. So, again, no matter how diluted
the universe is, the old mathematical argument of the intensity diminishing with the square of the distance, and the number of stars increasing
with the third power applies here, too. The light cannot be absorbed by the darkness in such a way, that it disappears. This is because of the law
of conservation of energy. All energy that is radiated by the stars must remain somewhere. This argument is now refuted. I am very curious about
what you will come up with next.
Richard: I am not going to have to come up with anything next as the obvious flaw in your logic
above lies in your basic premise. To wit: ‘Darkness is the absence of light’. Who says so? We could just as easily say that light is the
absence of dark. If you wish to prove something logically you have to posit an initial fact upon which to build your case and I, for one, cannot
buy such a spurious assumption that ‘dark is the absence of light’ as being an established absolute.
Have you heard of the ‘DARKSUCKER HYPOTHESIS’?
For years the electrical utility companies have led the public to believe they were in business to
supply electricity to the consumer, a service for which they charge a substantial rate. The recent accidental acquisition of secret records from a
well known power company has led to a massive research campaign which positively explodes several myths and exposes the massive hoax which has
been perpetrated upon the public by the power companies.
The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs emitted light; in actuality, these ‘light’
bulbs actually absorb DARK which is then transported back to the power generation stations via wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been
coined; the new scientific name for the device is DARKSUCKER.
This is a brief synopsis of the darksucker theory, which proves the existence of dark and establishes
the fact that dark has great mass, and further, that dark particle (the anti-photon) is the fastest known particle in the universe. Apparently,
even the celebrated Dr. Albert Einstein did not suspect the truth that just as COLD is the absence of HEAT, then LIGHT is actually the absence of
DARK. Scientists have now proven that light does not really exist.
The basis of the darksucker theory is that electric light bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the
darksuckers in the room where you are right now. There is much less dark right next to the darksuckers than there is elsewhere, demonstrating
their limited range. The larger the darksucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Darksuckers in a parking lot or on a football field have a
much greater capacity than the ones in used in the home, for example.
It may come as a surprise to learn that darksuckers also operate on a celestial scale; witness the Sun.
Our Sun makes use of dense dark, sucking it in from all the planets and intervening dark space. Naturally, the Sun is better able to suck dark
from the planets which are situated closer to it, thus explaining why those planets appear brighter than do those which are far distant from the
Sun. Occasionally, the Sun actually over-sucks; under those conditions, dark spots appear on the surface of the Sun. Scientists have long studied
these ‘spots’ and are only recently beginning to realise that the dark spots represent leaks of high pressure dark because the Sun has
over-sucked dark to such an extent that some dark actually leaks back into space. This leakage of high pressure dark frequently causes problems
with radio communications here on Earth due to collisions between the dark particles as they stream out into space at high velocity via the black
holes in the surface of the Sun.
As with all man-made devices, darksuckers have a finite lifetime caused by the fact that they are not
100% efficient at transmitting collected dark back to the power company via the wires from your home, causing dark to build up slowly within the
device. Once they are full of accumulated dark, they can no longer suck. This condition can be observed by looking for the black spot on a full
darksucker when it has reached maximum capacity of un-transmitted dark ... you have surely noticed that dark completely surrounds a full
darksucker because it no longer has the capacity to suck any dark at all.
A candle is a primitive darksucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first
use the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle,
the tip will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. And it is of no use to plug a candle into an electrical
outlet; it can only collect dark ... being primitive it has no transmission capabilities. Unfortunately, these original darksuckers have a very
limited range and are hazardous to operate because of the intense heat produced.
There are also portable darksuckers called flashlights. The bulbs in these devices collect dark which
is passed to a dark storage unit called a battery. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied (a process called ‘recharging’)
or replaced before the portable darksucker can continue to operate. If you break open a battery, you will find dense black dark inside, evidence
that it is actually a compact dark storage unit.
(Richard, List B, No. 17, 01 August 1998)
Respondent: The dark sucker hypothesis is another con job peddled by
some jokester and you, Richard peddled it back here as though it was a serious scientific finding. Please do refer to the URL: http://remus.rutgers.ed...s/Jokes/Misc/darksucker
Richard: Oh dear ... was it only a joke after all? Next you will be telling me that the
following report is not genuine too. Viz.:
EURO-ENGLISH: The European Commission has just announced an agreement that English will be the official
language of the European Community – rather than German (the other possibility). Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the
European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.
European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult; for
example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The
programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.
As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government conceded that English spelling had some room
for improvement, and has accepted a 5 year phase-in of new rules that would apply to the language and reclassify it as Euro-English. The agreed
plan is as follows:
In the first year, the soft ‘c’ would be replaced by ‘s’. Sertainly, this will make the sivil
servants jump with joy. The hard ‘c’ will be replased by ‘k’. This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan now have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome ‘ph’ is replased by
‘f’. This will reduse ‘fotograf’ by 20%.
In the third year, publik akseptance of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more
komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent ‘e’s in the language is disgrasful, and they should eliminat them.
By the forz year, peopl wil be reseptiv to lingwistik korektions such as replasing ‘th’ with ‘z’
and ‘w’ with ‘v’ (saving mor keyboard spas).
During ze fifz year, ze unesesary ‘o’ kan be dropd from vords kontaining ‘ou’ and similar
changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz year, ve vil hav a reli sensibil riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and
evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer.
ZE DREM VIL FINALI KUM TRU!
(Richard, List B, No. 28, 04 August 1998)
Library Index
