yeah you got a point there xrn. this topic is starting to suck big time! this theory was a big joke that had its good points; but was mostly laughable at best.

OK, so it is about the dark sucker theory. Why didn't you say earlier? *Edits post and thread title*

Wow...what a stupid thread... who actually believes this bull? I found it funny at least

Sounds like bullcrap to me lol. Light bulbs sucking darkness.....yea.

what's the point of the article? it just shows me that some people have far too much free time to be thinking up these theories. be realistic people.

That whole article was stupid. Dark sucker, please. Now if he wanted to say something about something sucking darkness then why not use a blackhole? Or wait would that be a Reverse Dark sucker?

the whole darksucker theory seems kind of funny.
Basically why i think its wrong:
"Dark" -> referring to what ever dark light particle you have in mind.
"Light" -> referring to light particles.
"Dark Mass" -> referring to all the "Dark" in existence as a collected mass with a center.
"Light Mass" -> Referring to all the collected "Light" in existence.
if you were to suck all the "Dark" out of a room, wouldnt it just be replaced by the surrounding "Dark" we can assume that, because as it was stated "Dark" is faster than "Light" so wouldnt it just make it lighter on the edge of all the "Dark Mass" and since we accept that "Dark" fills the entire universe, think of water going down the drain, thus the fact that it becomes lighter near "Darksuckers" proves that they do infact not suck "Dark" but they emit "Light".(or they just give out a great amount of energy which forces particles to move.)
Also if the "Darksuckers" were to be real then would it not in fact state that the natural being of the universe is "Light mass" but if we state that as being truthful then wouldnt it assume that both Light and Dark are being created all the time, since the universe is expanding all the time, but then what are those so called "Lightmakers" and "Darkmakers"?
In closing i state that the "Darksucker theory" is a load of Hoooey!.

(also i´m quite sure that if a candles head turns black, its more to do with oxygen and hydrogen being released and the remaining carbon gives it the black color, the reason why it turns dark instantly, is because the outside is what is effected first and if you cut the black part in half after a second of burning i bet that its still white inside.)

( :

it made me laugh but somehow i doubt that scientists have got the lightbulb wrong by failing to notice that it was actualyl a darksucker

I am disappointed that the biggest darksuckers of all, the sun and other stars, didn't rate a mention in the article. Or perhaps the darksucker principle doesn't apply in a vaccuum.

wow that was what all the mystery was about... why post something if you aren't atleast going to check to see if ppl replied...? two days late...

darksucker theory the name just sounds dumb lol

hmmm wad properties does it has to suck darkness n how does it do it n wad exactly is in the bulb tat sucks light
someone is gonna explain it CLEARLY if not it sounds too superficial n fake n rubbish..no offense

Umm I neverheard of such a theroy, the only way to preduce light is to burn a substance at a very high temperature causing a light/ flame to be emitted,and anyway if it does "suck in dark" how would it go about doing that? it wouldn't be like breathing in air.

lol thats a pretty lame theory >.>