• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Dancing David said:
Um, maybe Jerome's point if there is one, is that science is about making approximate models of reality.
Click to expand...
If that is his point, then he would be correct. The only addendum I would make to that is that science is about making continually more accurate approximate models of reality.
 
Upchurch said:
If it helps, I have also performed these experiments when I was physics undergrad and have verified the results. Just to cover the bases, I also performed and confirmed the Michelson-Morley experiment, so I can vouch there is no luminiferous aether out there propagating the light waves through space.

(It's a real shame too, because there are few scientific terms out there as fun to say as "luminiferous aether". Maybe "endoplasmic reticulum".)
Click to expand...



And I'm sure a lot of us have done some version of the Cavendish experiment, which measures the force of gravity between small masses.
 
Upchurch said:
If that is his point, then he would be correct. The only addendum I would make to that is that science is about making continually more accurate approximate models of reality.
Click to expand...

If I understand where Jerome is coming from (and I very well may not) I think he might object to the word "accurate" and prefer the word "useful" in that second sentence. Minor issue, but one that some folks think important (since accuracy implies that there is a set reality "out there" that we can know).
 
Upchurch said:
If that is his point, then he would be correct. The only addendum I would make to that is that science is about making continually more accurate approximate models of reality.
Click to expand...
That's just a supposition (or sophistry or obfuscation or off-topic BS or ...); where's the "evidence"? :p

However, if he were merely a troll, ...
 
Thanks for the explanation about light, MattusMaximus!

So the light is always going the same speed, but just bounces around a lot inside the glass, causing a delay, yes?

When they talk about 'stopping' light in the laboratory, they must mean causing light to bounce around indefinitely inside some medium?

I'm pretty sure I understand, but I think a better description would be 'containing' light and not stopping it, if I am understanding correctly.
 
Third Eye Open said:
Thanks for the explanation about light, MattusMaximus!
Click to expand...


You're welcome :)


So the light is always going the same speed, but just bounces around a lot inside the glass, causing a delay, yes?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say "bounces around" as that implies internal reflection, like a mirror cavity. I'd say that the energy of the light is absorbed and held onto temporarily by the atoms of the glass before being transmitted on.


When they talk about 'stopping' light in the laboratory, they must mean causing light to bounce around indefinitely inside some medium?
Click to expand...


Yes, except for the bouncing part. This has essentially been accomplished using a new state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate.


I'm pretty sure I understand, but I think a better description would be 'containing' light and not stopping it, if I am understanding correctly.
Click to expand...


I agree - "containing" would be a better way to coin it, but then that's the media for you.
 
Last edited:
Huntsman said:
"Contain"--Two syllables
"Stop"--One syllable
"Knowing the difference"--Take too long to make the 6 o'clock spot, and I've got a good lead on a dog that barks "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star".
Click to expand...


Nice :)

ETA: Now if that dog could fart "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" then that would be news!
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
Aren't "atoms packed super-closely together" and "super-high vacuum" mutually exclusive conditions?
Click to expand...


The "super-packed atoms" description is referring to the Bose-Einstein condensate, which exists inside of the super-high vacuum environment.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Yup! Of course, it was all "just supposition" and so it doesn't qualify as "evidence." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

of course. I mean, you have to suppose that it is gravity causing the effect and that obviously make the whole thing a supposition....

Now if I could only say that with a straight face... :p
 
Face it, all this wave-particle duality is mere superposition.



I'll get my coat.



Before I do just a quick thanks to the actual scientists who posted here - as so often on this site the poseurs like JDG actually generate something of value when people who know what they're talking about chip in. My opinion that even difficult subjects can be explained (in general terms) by people who really understand the topic using straightforward language has again been strengthened. I particularly liked the solid/gas/liquid analogy.
Thanks again.
 
Dragon said:
<snip>
Before I do just a quick thanks to the actual scientists who posted here - as so often on this site the poseurs like JDG actually generate something of value when people who know what they're talking about chip in. My opinion that even difficult subjects can be explained (in general terms) by people who really understand the topic using straightforward language has again been strengthened. I particularly liked the solid/gas/liquid analogy.
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Seconded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom