09 Sep 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopbefore there was anything, there was nothing.
why do people so often say darkness is the absence of light.... strictly speaking, this isnt true, the true state of our universe is darkness... before there was anything there was darkness, not light....
shouldnt it be light is the absence of darkness..?
We can't prove that "nothing" was dark.
09 Sep 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopWell, one is a philosophical statement, the other is a scientific one. Light, i.e. photons are "something" an electromagnetic wave which occurs in quanta called photons. Thus, just like cold is the absence of heat (a lack of molecular or atomic motion is the absence of movement is another way of seeing it) darkness is the absence of photons or other energetic particles which could potentially produce photons.
why do people so often say darkness is the absence of light.... strictly speaking, this isnt true, the true state of our universe is darkness... before there was anything there was darkness, not light....
shouldnt it be light is the absence of darkness..?
On the other hand, you could say that it doesn't matter which way you define it, the results are the same, but being human we define things by what is there rather than by what is not. Heat is there, light is there etc. cold and darkness are simply an absence of the prior.
10 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonyes, i see what you're saying, well said
Well, one is a philosophical statement, the other is a scientific one. Light, i.e. photons are "something" an electromagnetic wave which occurs in quanta called photons. Thus, just like cold is the absence of heat (a lack of molecular or atomic motion is the absence of movement is another way of seeing it) darkness is the absence of photons or other energeti ...[text shortened]... not. Heat is there, light is there etc. cold and darkness are simply an absence of the prior.