If there is such thing as speed of light, why isn't

I suggest you take a look vsauce's video "What is the speed of Dark?" - on YouTube

>>8980610
That guy's a fucking joke. He takes meme facts and somehow ties them all together to suggest a point to his audience.

>>8980608
there is and it's actually "faster" than the speed of light
you could theoretically cast a shadow over a distant place covering light years in seconds

however, "dark" is just absence of light, not a form of energy, so it's not really "something" moving fast, rather than cessation of the presence of something

>>8980608
>>8980615
on the same principle, you could move a laser pointer dot over astronomical distances just as fast

>>8980614

A joke of a guy for a joke of a thread.

File: IMG_5913.gif (613KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 498x498px

>>8980608
>Why can't the absence of something be described by the same means as something observable?

>>8980608
There is no speed of light since "light" changes its speed based on what medium it's traveling through. Different spectrum have different speeds, it's actually how chromatic aberration occurs in photographs. So using this logic one can assume that the light is already there and the mass is what is affecting it.

The light is everywhere and the dark is merely mass affecting it's direction of travel.

>>8980622
No you can't, nigger!

>>8981409
fucking triggered

>>8981411
I'm eagerly waiting for your explanation as to why not.

>>8980608
If there is such a thing as speed of sound why isn't there speed of no sound?

>>8980608
>If there is such thing as speed of light, why isn't there speed of dark?

that's like asking how fast a car can travel that doesn't even exist.

What exactly are you measuring when you say "Speed of dark"?

the speed of a dark can not exceed 10m/s

>>8980608
The speed of dark is just the negative of the speed of light you brainlet.

>>8981943
underrated

>>8980622
>>8980615
These are both wrong. Imagine light not as beams but as distinct particles moving from the light source to the studied surface and you'll see why. You can even replace light and source with water and hose (in a perfect vacuum and 0 gravity) to make it more apparent
>>8980608
Darkies are lazy. Is that the kind of meme answer you were looking for?

>>8981952
>These are both wrong
the fuck are you on about?

Okay so darkness can have variable speeds, whereas light is a constant.

Get this, right? So let's say you have the super power to control the vector of darkness, at which point you can assign darkness magnitudes and directions to be near zero in a particular direction; let's say you're talking about some radial darkness vector with a magnitude approaching zero.

That would mean darkness is expanding radially from a point with nearly zero speed, leading to there being an infinitesimal amount of darkness in some given space.

As the darkness in a given space approaches zero, the light in that space approaches infinity, thus, a near infinite amount of energy is contained within a system with near zero darkness. This (factually) is how the big bang occurred.

That is why, darkness usually travels at some appreciable fraction of the speed of light, usually around .4c-.8c, doesn't really matter I guess.

File: light.png (173KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x500px

>>8981952
>>8981963
For the laser one I think he means something like this, yeah?

>>8980608
don't you mean the slow of dark?

>>8981943
Oh ya then explain black people.

>>8981409
This is correct.