Prove it , show it , that this , " mathematical singularity " , is more basic than the physical .
With no refference to anything physical in its definition and proof .
Last edited:
Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
Prove it , show it , that this , " mathematical singularity " , is more basic than the physical .
With no refference to anything physical in its definition and proof .
The mathematical singularity are simply where our current laws of physics and GR are non applicable. And proof has never been the goal or meaning of science and scientific theories, but I'll bet my short n curlies, you'll ask the same question/s next week...and the week after that, and the week after that.
The greater majority of your "statements of certainty" are always devoid of any scientific evidence, let alone this proof you constantly ask for, and predictably nothing but philosophical nonsense.
To your last statement , no surprise .
While both I and James have answered you correctly river, I still doubt very much that you understand.
The possibility of a physical singularity as distinct from the mathematical singularity, is still a reasonable concept. eg: GR tells us that once the mass of any object collapses beyond its Schwarzchild limit, further collapse is compulsory. In other words, it keeps on collapsing under gravity. By the same token, GR and our known laws fail us at the quantum/Planck level. So we know nothing at that epoch. At the same time, most all cosmologists do not accept collapse to infinite density and spacetime curvature, which effectively means that a "surface of sorts"should exist at or just below that quantum/Planck level.
Now river you did say that now you have me on ignore, so you wont be reading this, but alternatively, you probably would not understand it anyway, and/or totally and ignorantly reject it, as it fails to align with your gobbledygook version of cosmology.
Well certainly this is your version of gobbledygook cosmology .
No river, It is the accepted mainstream version based on available evidence, with some reasonable speculation with regards to inside the BH's EH.
But we have science threads on both the BB and BHs. If you have any science to offer, be my guest.
Tell me what you don't understand river?
If you weren't so anti science, and immediatley falling for any anti science nonsense that you find in any little corner, you may understand that GR is our accepted theory of gravity, and is tested everyday and still passing those tests. A couple of threads I have started on that in the sciences river, go read them.
Gravity of course is simply geometry, or curved/warped spacetime in the presence of mass/energy....why? we don't know.
I would really like to drag you out of the cesspool you are grovelling river, and to show that, here is a short 7 minute video, that may help explain why in general, your one liner questions mean absolutely nothing.
Gravity of course is simply geometry, or curved/warped spacetime in the presence of mass/energy....why? we don't know.
I would really like to drag you out of the cesspool you are grovelling river, and to show that, here is a short 7 minute video, that may help explain why in general, your one liner questions mean absolutely nothing.
And you'll do what pad ?
I'll try and show you the error of your ways, answer what I can, or give a reputable link, and remove the ignorant state of mind you are obviously in.
If that were even possible , then that would have happened many , many , many , posts ago .
Yes, I suppose you are right, sadly though, I don't believe you really know how badly that reflects on you.
Are you sure?
I truly doubt it river...but hey!! knock yourself out!!!!
- Status