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 19 2013: From what science claims, black holes are created by massive stars exploding or imploding, I see it as the spinning motion of our galaxy at approx 600,000 mph and the spin of each celestial body that spins and rotates around each other, at least that's how I see it. Science has claimed black holes are due to massive stars exploding or imploding and these largest of stars all just happen to be in te exact middle of each galaxy? How funny.

    Somehow someone keeps changing my post!!
    • Mar 19 2013: So Jim, they are not holes, they are spheres. And because they occupy space along three axes they have mass. What elements other than than the debris that "falls" toward the so-called black hole comprise the black hole proper? Bear in mind that there are some bigger than others and the power they seem to exert on other objects is related to the size and reach of this phenomenon. Assuming that to all be true, it appears that because the so-called "holes" are spherical and some bigger than others they are not an element in an of themselves but are communities of atoms that may have a wide variety of sizes. Thus since the seem to configure as spheres, whose to say that whatever these are made of do not cause the assembly of all spherical bodies? There is something more that "gravity" at work or it is likely the universe would be a lot more irregular and there would be chunks and slabs and all manner of pieces of matter. Nothing is the way it is for now reason--unless one's view is i whole or part tainted by belief in supernatural design. Who knows? Perhaps super natural design may be part of all of this but we should not assume it until we at least resolve these question of what element or elements comprise the sphere we have primitively been calling a "hole"? And since these phenomena are not all the same, to what extent can the atoms that have these properties exist in the smallest clusters? What happens when other matter within reach is of enough volume to cease being assumed to just fall into a hole and start becoming the crust of a growing spherical object which may become one of the myriad of celestial bodies we see as spheres in the sky?
      • Mar 19 2013: Please bring proof from science of your claim, perhaps they can explain it so that I fully understand what is claimed.

        • Mar 20 2013: I think the main problem is that we may be dealing with matter or elements which have properties on an order of magnitude that is outside human ability to test it in a lab. There are of course other phenomena in the natural universe which we haven't figured out how to capture or if we even can--neutrinos, magnetic monopoles, Higgs etc. I'm not a scientist in this field. I'm just a thinker positing some questions or suggestions and trying to back them up with logic. I think that's what TED is for--putting thinkers in touch for stimulative exchanges rather than academic turf wars. There are no Phd qualifications and 15 year olds and 80 year old won't even know that they have that much distance in age. If a particle of matter or a single atom of an element whose nature is such that it would weigh a million kilograms on earth yet be say the size of a grape, it could not be handled by humans and bore through the crust of the earth. If you read back at my other hypothesis you'll see that there is reason to believe such matter exists in differing size pieces and the bigger the group, the more gravity it has. Conversely, a small amount may be just strong enough to provide enough omnidirectional gravity to cause the spheres we know as planets, moons and stars to form with such elegant symmetry. I reject that a bunch of space junk just will congeal into these orbs without something at their core causing such a compelling influence. It's not a hole. And exists not in two dimensions but is a sphere in three. And therefore must be made of something. We have to define what that something is even though it would seem to be so dense we couldn't even go near it with its force crushing us.
      • Mar 19 2013: So you're saying these black holes are now spheres,--- created by explosions or implosions? I'm all ears so ta speak. You mention falling into the hole. Where did you get that, from my post?

        A round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.
        An object having this shape; a ball or globe.
        orb - globe - field - area - realm - domain - circle

        Wow, tell us how black holes are spheres.

        • Mar 20 2013: You tell me how they are holes. This is the problem. The name chosen prejudices people to cling to a perception that is most likely in valid. Nothing that is popularly believed about these phenomena implies that it is a flat circular hole in two dimensions. We only see it as cirle, but it make no sense to assum that if you move around it that it wil look eliptical and then a straight line. And then what is it a hole between?

          Distant light on the other side of this phenomenon appear to "bend"--that implies it has force that doesn't just face you and me but is a sphere. I think you make my case for why the "black hole" is a primitive and prejudicial term that needs to be upgraded to something closer to what we now know. To see it as a "hole" is anthropocentric--as if to say it only exists as a round region of flatness when it is perfectly aligned with our sight paths to appear that way
      • Mar 20 2013: Now the reply button appears. Lol
        If a black hole is a sphere, does this sphere have a casing?
        • Mar 21 2013: Are you serious? or just pulling my chain? Can't see how you could ask that if you read and considered what I've been writing. One last time, the stuff black holes are made of comes in pieces of differing sizes. We know the biggest to be the super-massive black holes around which entire galaxies remain under the gravitational influences. The question is how small do the elements or atoms group into? If that is a golf ball size and is only one atom, it would seem theoretical that matter falling toward the smallish black hole phenomenon will be abundant enough to form a matter enclosure or crust, though the force still attracts more matter eventually building a sphere with a hot core of crushed matter that has nowhere further to fall. That hides its center which is the black hole material. I'm no more an expert than you. I am simply making what I feel to be logical questions that may explain why much of the universe takes the shape it does.
      • Mar 21 2013: So no big bang--explosion or implosion creates a black hole? If not, then what sort of evidence do you offer for your hypothesis?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.