TED Conversations

Manyika Sakambuki

This conversation is closed.

Mention one scientific theory you think needs adjustment. Why do you think that way?

Our assumptions fashion how we see and make decisions. in the past, astronomy was defined as the study of how heavenly bodies move around the earth because it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. that was until a Polish Astronomer- Nicolai Copernicus changed our thinking. same as when the atom was thought to be the smallest particle until electrons, neutrinos, etc. were discovered. bring forth your ideas!


Closing Statement from Manyika Sakambuki

Ok thanks! Turns out that all theories which have no direct application to the physical world wont hang around for long. Most likely, they'll stay as just ideas of the 'geniuses' which have no proof but only serve to quench our thirst for understanding certain things that seem hard to understand e.g. black holes, perpetuity of life, being able to control infinitesimally small stuff(nano techs), death... and we can go on and on. This has been a useful conversation.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 18 2013: Another scientific wrong is that we must stop calling the phenomenon we have been calling a "black hole" a black hole. If it's spherical, it's not a hole. Just because it does not emit or reflect light does not make it "black". It appears we have stuck ourselves to the most primitive characterization of one of the most "compelling" phenomena in the known universe. Whatever this is, it is not a black hole. So when is it time to venture at least some summation of what these phenomena are which at least addresses it's dimensionality and light properties which we continue to prejudice incorrectly. Is it a big deal? Yes it is. It's a measure of what we accept of ourselves. Are we the type that stops learning how to use a computer when we finally get the one task we need done? Or are we they type that feels a sort of new birth when we discover the first of a myriad of new ways to do things? Black holes are for the former.
    • Mar 19 2013: Many years ago I remember going on the Gravitron (centrifugal style amusement park ride). Brilliant experience - being pinned against the inside wall, hardly able to lift an arm or leg. If the operator had walked away and left it running, there would have been no escape (not even light could have escaped!). So if they ever change the name 'black hole' I vote they change it to 'gravitron'.
      • Mar 19 2013: That's a start--perhaps a perfect one. But it occurs to me that if it is spherical and occupies space as is not a black hole in space, as it has been long mischaracterized, it is made of something that exists in this universe which can be an element but not on our standard periodic table of elements. Perhaps it is made up of a single element too powerful in its properties to ever hold in the human hand or even bring near the planet. Or perhaps it's an element which even a small bit of is at the center of every spherical orb which causes gravity to be equal on the surface from pole to pole. After all there are different sized "back holes", whose to say some of them aren't tiny and attract so much matter that it ceases being crushed and becomes the bulk of a planet, moon or star. and the reason it takes its spherical shape? Nothing about the universe should be accepted without cause and effect and simply saying gravity is what makes orbs like the earth, moon and sun round has always seemed an unacceptable answer. Something starts that enormous process, not just the close proximity of bigger pieces of space junk. That might cause a comet to congeal but there is something much stronger defining a planet et al. What elemental units compose a so-called black hole? And since there are more than one black hole and at differing sizes does that not imply that smaller and smaller parcels of this element.exist as a dynamic force in shaping all the large round spheres in the visible universe--with the motion of space junk like asteroids affected by varying gravitational influences of these larger concentrations of this un-named element either in a true black hole state or the smaller parcels hypothesized to be at the core of the orbs we take for granted as being round for pretty flimsy reasons?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.