SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Thread Morons
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: X Y Zebra who wrote (6494)1/6/1999 12:56:00 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie  Read Replies (3) of 12810
 
But the issue is black holes being dark emitters. I certainly would never dispute the dark sucker hypothesis. I think where we are having our dispute is in the primary assumption of "the absence of light is dark". In order for a dark sucker to work, there must be something to "suck"...so to speak. And, you so much as stated this when you say that "dark travels faster than light". So we are left with a universe that has both light and dark particle/waves in coexistence. I am beginning to see some holes (black or otherwise) in this venture and think that people should do some more DD before investing in that venture. I flunked Nuclear Astrology so maybe this level scientific thought is out of my reach.

At least we agree that dark suckers do in fact "suck", I just think that black holes must emit (especially after sucking in some beans).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News