VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- opposite of speed of light... (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=25663)

opposite of speed of light...

Hi all,

I'm having a small (friendly) argument about the english language and I need some native speakers to be the judge...

When you have the speed of light, what would be the opposite?
-Speed of dark
-Speed of darkness
-something else?

Yes, we know we have too much time on our hands

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

hmm. you're asking me to reach waaaay back..

If I remember my physics class, there is no opposite to the speed of light. Light is light. Dark is the absence of light.

The only way there could be a "speed of dark/ness" would be the speed of the light leaving.

it has to be something else.

In scientific terms, there would be no speed of dark or darkness because dark is no light.

Maybe it's the speed of sound? Light and sound are somewhat opposite.

Good question to ask a scientist.

It's been a long time since college physics, but isn't 0 deg. K the point at which everything stops radiating energy? Therefore, couldn't it be said logically that the opposite of a speed is temperature?

Otherwise, I have to agree there really is no opposite to speed. Velocity, I believe, is another matter, since there's vectors involved.

The English language can be sooo much fun at times.

__________________
It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
-- ComaVN (from Slashdot)

Re: opposite of speed of light...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToolkiT
Hi all,

I'm having a small (friendly) argument about the english language and I need some native speakers to be the judge...

When you have the speed of light, what would be the opposite?
-Speed of dark
-Speed of darkness
-something else?

Yes, we know we have too much time on our hands

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sowens
It's been a long time since college physics, but isn't 0 deg. K the point at which everything stops radiating energy? Therefore, couldn't it be said logically that the opposite of a speed is temperature?

Otherwise, I have to agree there really is no opposite to speed.

---

I would tend to agree with sowens that the opposite of the speed of light should be absolute zero. But as most of us have said, it's been a long time since my last physics class (about 34 years in my case).

__________________
Jonathan

Hmm

Fast as the Speed of Light, Slow as a turtle?

In Black Holes And Baby Universes by Stephen Hawking, he states that a black hole is a body with gravity so dense that it pulls objects down to the surface at a rate of (roughly) 300,000KM/s, which is the speed of light. In other words, the body is black because its gravity is so strong that it pulls light back towards its surface, and, thus, light cannot escape. Therefore I would say that the opposite of the speed of light is a gravity greater than 300,000KM/s.

Boo-yah.

DMV speed

__________________
Only in a Jeep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird291
In Black Holes And Baby Universes by Stephen Hawking, he states that a black hole is a body with gravity so dense that it pulls objects down to the surface at a rate of (roughly) 300,000KM/s, which is the speed of light. In other words, the body is black because its gravity is so strong that it pulls light back towards its surface, and, thus, light cannot escape. Therefore I would say that the opposite of the speed of light is a gravity greater than 300,000KM/s.

Boo-yah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
That's two votes for black hole.

---

__________________
It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
-- ComaVN (from Slashdot)

"But didn't Hawking also prove that particles can escape from a black hole, thus proving black holes weren't actually black?"

Holes of color?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

For what its worth, temperature can be though of as nothing more than a measurement of atomic vibration speed, a kind of velocity in and of itself, so temperature is a sort of measurement of (atomic vibration) speed...

My two cents.. I would have to agree with Toby, "stop" or zero motion i.e. 0k. But at true 0K (absolute zero) , atoms and sub atomic particles and all the other dangly bits that make up matter as we know it tend to fall apart.. could be very messy if it actually happened.

Now my wife's response to this question would be:
"Waiting in line at the bank or grocery store, that's the opposite of the speed of light.."

__________________
"One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no �them� out there. It�s just an awful lot of �us�." -- Douglas Adams

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Sure there is: stop.

---

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

none

The speed of light is a constant--there is no opposite. Also, the Theory or Relativity shows that there really is no "stop," because though you may perceive that you are stopped, relative to other objects you are moving.

(I think)

Define 'opposite'.

The common opposite of left is right, of up is down, of hot is cold, etc., but almost every time we use the word 'opposite', we mean it in a very limited or relative sense.

The speed of light is the upper theoretical speed a particle can travel. The opposite of that would be the slowest a particle can move- a dead stop... unless there is some form of 'reverse' or 'negative' motion a particle can move without velocity as we know it.

Now, a 'dead stop' would also be a relative thing- stopped in relation to what? But, since EVERYTHING is relative, then I guess the answer would be that it would be stopped in relation to the same viewer seeing the particle moving at the speed of light.

Of course, it is still a particle, so not yet a complete opposite... so I guess it would have to be some form of anti-particle sitting perfectly still. (Hmmm, this is begining to sound like me in front of a computer!)

__________________
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick
that would be the absence of speed.

---

To quote my brother...

"No, no, no, no, no, you're WRONG!" ;-) ;-)

Anyway, it's black because light cannot escape it, and if light cannot escape it, you cannot see (visually) it. However, light is not the top of the particle-speed spectrum--particles moving faster than the speed of light can be detected.

It's easier to think of it not as a hole in space sucking in everything in space, but rather as a very dense body with a massive gravity field.

Hi all,

I registered specially to post in this topic, because I'm ToolkiT's counterpart in his argument. We got entangled in this dark matter at another forum, where Dutch is the leading language. As you all can read, my English grammar skills are not on the same high level as ToolkiT's are. In fact, I'm having quit a few problems composing this post...

The reason for our argument is a sig, which I used to show at this Dutch forum: "Ok, so what's the speed of dark". The moment I found this quote somewhere on the net I thought it was a witty one-liner, good enough to be used as my sig. The moment ToolkiT laid eyes on it, he couldn't resist his urge to correct me. "It should be darkness" Thank you, ToolkiT. Of course I replied with my point of view, and before we knew it we got stuck in our little argument.

ToolkiT has been so kind to ask you all, as native speakers, as a judge, and provided me with the link to this topic. Thank you all so far for replying. But although your replies are very interresting to read (I love science), none of them are about the grammatical side of the matter. And that's what it is all about...

So, in short: is the use of the word 'dark' in the sentence "Ok, so what's the speed of dark" grammatically correct English? Or should it be 'darkness'?

Thank you all for you time and patience with us Dutchies!

P.S. Please continue also with the more scientific replies. Again, they are very fun and interresting to read!