posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I see you still haven't explained why nothing disappears into the black hole in the middle of the Rodin coil
Surely you know that the term "black hole" in the context of a Rodin coil has nothing to do with the popular concept of things getting sucked into a
black hole in a galaxy never to return?
Surely you must know that the question itself is a mockery? An attempt to trap? Ridiculous? Silly?
Funny that you have the cognitive
ability to recognize it's silly, yet you don't admit it's silly. A black hole is a black hole, and it can be different sizes. The smallest one we
think we've discovered so far is several solar masses, and that would be a stable black hole. In theory there is a critical mass below which a black
hole will not be stable, and the less massive it is, the faster it would "evaporate". It was theorized the LHC might have the ability to make some
small black holes but to my knowledge they haven't observed any yet.
But when somebody says "black hole", I assume that by that, they mean "black hole". And for that you accuse me of being silly? Can I return the
favor and accuse you of being silly for suggesting I'm silly to think that? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that "black hole" means
"black hole". If he's talking about something else, not only should he call it something else as buddhasystem said, but he needs to define what the
new term is.
By the way, real black holes are at the center of a "donut"; not the edible kind, but the shape:
Black Holes Are Like Doughnut Holes
By comparing the proportion of X-rays to infrared light coming from around a black hole, McKernan and his colleagues indirectly figured out how
material may be distributed around the black hole. After partitioning the data into those observed edge-on and those observed face-on, the team found
that 90 percent of the active galactic nuclei observable face-on had basically the same proportion of X-rays to infrared light.
The conclusion: No matter the heft of the black hole, its surrounding material took the shape of a doughnut with a black hole at its center.
"Now we know they all look like doughnuts, and the same kind of doughnut too," McKernan said. "The lack of variety would disappoint Homer
So yes, of course when Rodin says black hole in the middle of a donut, of course I'm thinking he means a real black hole. Why
wouldn't I? That's the way real black holes are: surrounded by donuts.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
I interpret him to mean sucking aether in and expelling energy out - black hole - white hole.
You have to do better than that. What are the
properties of this "black hole" or "Rodin hole" or whatever you want to call it that we can measure in the lab? That's right, you don't know,
and neither does Rodin. So yes it's silly to claim it's a black hole, and just as silly to claim what he's calling a black hole isn't a real black
hole if you can't define exactly what it is, and how to measure it, so we can see if it exists. And of course if it's not a black hole, then he
shouldn't be calling it a black hole.
You and others need to stop making excuses for Rodin and stop saying "but what he said is not what he meant". After you say that you can make up
anything you want to, but that really won't validate what Rodin actually said, now will it?