No Such Thing As A Singularity

[IamJoseph]

I reread, well actually, read, his whole post now. Alright, I agree, off to pseudoscience with him (duality? wtf).

lets roll our scientific sleeves up?

Some decades ago, some scientists chanted Eureka! and came up with the quark - so small, it has only one side. This was their first submission of a singularity. Not long after, they started to pull their shock of white hair apart - having discovered a whole universal structure therein: different colored and charmlike terms for other quarks appeared; vibrations which spur virtual particles came next; the Alpha particles which can free itself from the shakles of its micro prison was declared.

But they missed the overiding transcendent factor here: that what they looked for was scientifically and logically impossible. They were trying to vindicate another equally A-scientific premise - that of a Random core base underlieing the universe. Random is not just A-scientific, it contradicts the very science it is based on. This was recently pointed out by cosmologiest Roger Primrose (MV Theory): 'It is apparent that a complex result must have a complexity (complex program) underlieing it' (read, random is A-scientific, and appears nowhere in the uni). This was of coz, earlier shown by Einstein by default: the Quantum T, which first displayed a random - turned out to be anything but! In fact, the very random was a definitive, predictable sequence, which gave birth to electronics and the chip. The random plausabilities became fastiously non-random in its very nano lair. Einstein was correct with his God does not play dice - but at the time never realized it: he was inadvertantly saying, there is no random - and he was right.

So if random cannot be proven - how does it impact on the singularity factor? Well, let's define the antithesis of random. For sure, it means there is a program here - else we would'nt have science or any equations to speak of. A program = an intergrated system. An intergration = no Singularity possible. A singularity is a singular, one-attribute entity. The instant we introduce anything else - it ceases to be a singularity. This includes even a forcefield, energy, light, time or any interaction of any kind - any of those counterpart interaction entities can house a program and foster an intergration. So what are we looking for when we seek out a singularity? if we discover an indevisable particle - it has to remain that way for eternity: unless we contrive an infinite number of singularities - corrupting the term, and making everything everywhere a singularity. One cannot posit a singularity, and also explain another one nudging it - oops - where'd you come from!?

Now look at the core base of all things closely. lets examine life. Is it the result of a singularity or a duality? Of coz, the latter. All life forms started as a duality of male/female, then split apart: the odds for two alligning life forms with counterpart facilities, appearing independently and then banging into each other - is way beyond sci-fi; definitely, it is not in the possibility, and science rests on plausability, not possibility. Look around aside from life forms: the duality factor is pervasive, and of equidistant time and age periods: they appeared together, as a program, fully intergrated and interacting - else nothing could have or can happen.

It is the result which determines the cause - not the other way around.

 

[IamJoseph]

There have been several singularities located and precisely plotted.

*SEVERAL*... like millions of BB's - the term used for the first starting point (s) of the first of million first beginnings? How many one's make one?

 

[Read-Only]

*SEVERAL*... like millions of BB's - the term used for the first starting point (s) of the first of million first beginnings? How many one's make one?

Sorry, wrong again - not NEARLY that many!! But that's besides the point. Since you apparently know they exist, why the title of this thread???????

 

[IamJoseph]

Sorry, wrong again - not NEARLY that many!! But that's besides the point. Since you apparently know they exist, why the title of this thread???????

When you say there are many singularities..'located' in...then my Q is where were they located, and how can you entertain a singularity in a location, the latter being a clear dual counterpart? We are not talking singular lone peoples, wherein we can say he was home alone, and disregard the house. This is unacceptable when we speak of entities.


Can you spot the glitch here:

A singularity has a very specific meaning but complicated meaning in GR (where i assume we are talking). A spacetime manifold has a singularity if it has timelike curves which are finite in length (so if you are following one of those curves you reach a point where you no longer exist) - thus the BB has a singularity, as does a black hole etc.

 

[BenTheMan]

Can you spot the glitch here:

Yes. Manifolds are non-singular, as per their definition.

Wikipedia says:

A manifold is an abstract mathematical space in which every point has a neighborhood which resembles Euclidean space, but in which the global structure may be more complicated.

The relevant part is "in which every point has a neighborhood which resembles Euclidean space". This is not true at a singularity. Therefore, if you have a singularity, you cannot have a manifold.

I don't know who wrote this crap

A singularity has a very specific meaning but complicated meaning in GR (where i assume we are talking). A spacetime manifold has a singularity if it has timelike curves which are finite in length (so if you are following one of those curves you reach a point where you no longer exist) - thus the BB has a singularity, as does a black hole etc.

but you better stop quoting them.

 

[IamJoseph]

Yes. Manifolds are non-singular, as per their definition.
.

I agree we can't have a manifold and/with a singularity. Also, the glitches are eslewhere and far more blatant. These are:

EVERY POINT (more then one), FINITE LENGTHS OF SPACETIME, CURVES (as in more than one), EVERY MATHEMATICAL POINT (more than one point), and any reference to an accompanying black hole.

Basically and technically, a singularity cannot contain a structure of points, or waves, or anything which can be isolated, compared to anything else, reducable or divisable in any manner whatsoever, nor anything which can be said to be impacting upon it.

These are also out: Time (even theoretical time to measure nothing else), energy, heat, light, vibrations, or any other intities or forces anyplace else (there is no 'other' place).

There is no alternative to the DUALITY factor in the start-up of the universe, or anything it contains thereafter.

 

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by Roman
(duality? wtf).

Yes, it appears this was not in your radar. A duality negates a singularity possibility, so it is the fundamental factor - hardly a wtf. Put simply, the term 'AND', &, COMMAS, COLINS, PLURALS - are out. These are also duality factors:

HEAVEN & EARTH, DARKNESS & LIGHT, WATER & SOLIDS, EARTH & RAINS, MAN & WOMAN, MATTER AND ANTI-MATTER, PHYSICALITY AND SPIRITUALITY, CONSCIOUSNESS AND SUB/UNCONSCIOUSNESS, ETC.

 

[BenTheMan]

Basically and technically, a singularity cannot contain a structure of points, or waves, or anything which can be isolated, compared to anything else, reducable or divisable in any manner whatsoever, nor anything which can be said to be impacting upon it.

Man, my head just exploded.

This is completely incomprehensible.

What a joke.

 

[IamJoseph]

Man, my head just exploded.

This is completely incomprehensible.

What a joke.

I thought it was a scientific debate.

But let's expand on this premise there is not, nor can there be, a singularity. Lets examine the BB theory, which says there was a Singularity particle, which then went BANG! (exploded out). At once, pertinent questions also explode in the mind:

What caused the explosion - did some one ignite a fuse? no - we can't have an outside entity or external factor here, when discussing an irreducable particle.

Did the explosion result from internal movement? What would one sector inside collide with - this makes it an invalid premise.

Perhaps the internal soup just heated and expanded? - invalid, because we have introduced heat here. In fact, the notion of 'internal' is invalid by the non-devisable factor.

The issue becomes more ubsurd when we consider that the universe is NOT eternal or infinite: this begs the question, if there was a 'before' premise or entity, why are se looking for a Singularity after the fact - does it not render the notion of irreducable and indevisable muted?

To take this to the ultimate step, lets examine what is the alternative, and if there is one which is at least logical and evidential. Is there one? Of course there is - and here's where the duality factor becomes non-escapable, its logic and evidence also being at hand. Wherever we look, we see an intergrated system in the universe, with the entire basis of science resting on cause and effect (itself a duality) - and an intergration is mutually exclusive with a singularity, in fact its antithesis. That is evidence. Its logic is derived from the premise that it takes two to tango: nothing happens or can happen with one particle by itself. Jitterbugging particles need music: read, an object needs an impacting, external force to become activated. That is evidential logic.

Some prominent scientists subscribe to this logic, by both scientific and logical (philosophical) POVs, and this aside from the controversial MV and ID theories now emerging in some quaters:

'..But on the older theory that the universe was eternal,
he explains: "It turned out to be so ugly that people
dismissed it. What we find - the simplest theory - is
a creation out of nothing, the appearance out of nothing
of the universe."

Penzias and his partner, Robert Wilson, won the Nobel
Prize for their discovery of this radiation. The Big
Bang theory is now one of the most thoroughly
validated theories in all of science.

Robert Wilson was asked by journalist Fred Heeren if
the Big Bang indicated a creator.

Wilson said, "Certainly there was something that
set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can't
think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis."

Of course, we don't need to go into religion here, but there is no doubt that this is a logical, scientific premise, even while it is contained in Genesis, which is a theology. However, science is alligning itself with one theological work, namely Genesis, one of the few, if not only, document which does give a premise of the Universe's emergence/creation process. It cannot be dismissed, when it alligns with logic and science.

The duality factor has no alternative - this is seen in what can be described as the first recording of a scientific constant (equation), which points to a duality resting in the first, primal emergence of all entities, including life forms, as depicted in the creational primal universe process of Genesis' first chapter: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'. While this relates to a life form, it also connects by subsequence, for all life form species, and to all entities in the universe by its precedent heaven-earth, darkness-light dualities, and also by science's matter-anti-matter, and conscious- unconscience duality states.

Some scientists now make theories of obvious desperation here: that a program directive must have existed prior to the BB, and would have been carried over by or via a pre-universe or another precedent universe scenario. Fine, we cannot dismiss this as a possibility: but the very notion of a pre-universe again prohibits a Singularity factor.

 

[BenTheMan]

I thought it was a scientific debate.

That's a laugh. Allow me to quote you...

Lets examine the BB theory, which says there was a Singularity particle, which then went BANG! (exploded out).

The Lambda_CDM cosmological model doesn't say this at all. Presumably that's what you're refering to.

Then there's this gem:

The duality factor has no alternative - this is seen in what can be described as the first recording of a scientific constant (equation), which points to a duality resting in the first, primal emergence of all entities, including life forms, as depicted in the creational primal universe process of Genesis' first chapter: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'. While this relates to a life form, it also connects by subsequence, for all life form species, and to all entities in the universe by its precedent heaven-earth, darkness-light dualities, and also by science's matter-anti-matter, and conscious- unconscience duality states.

And this, which is CLEARLY scientific:

However, science is alligning itself with one theological work, namely Genesis, one of the few, if not only, document which does give a premise of the Universe's emergence/creation process.

Let us derive all of our knowledge from the Bible.

This next one is so wrong that it made me laugh when I read it at first:

Science is seeking an irreducable, indivisable entity, which will be a common denominator of all matter, namely what is referred to as a Singularity.

Not only do you not know anything about modern science, you don't even know anything about singularities, which is the reason you started this thread.

Singularities and dualities:

IMHO, all things began as a Duality, including all original first cause of life forms.

It is not clear that you have any notion of what a duality is, either. Next you will talk about "Trialities", motivated by the Trinity.

The reasoning here is that the universe is an intergrated system - nullfying the possibility of a Singularity.

As Roman so eloquently put it, WTF?

I could go on cutting and pasting the bullshit you've been smearing across SciForums, but I am tired, and my point is made. There is no science in your ideas, which can hardly even be called pseudo science.

It is a shame that the moderators don't put this thread where it belongs.

 

[invert_nexus]

Did you hit report? Tristan doesn't hang out around the forums, but he does show up to deal with reported threads.

I could always put in an action request, I guess.
The best bet would be for you to keep that report button in mind in the future. Mods can't be everywhere.

Also, don't expect every report to have the result you desire, of course. Some people get pissy when the mods don't agree with them.

This thread is pretty much pure babble though. Definitely pseudo mateerial.

 

[Dan (Edmond)]

Science is seeking an irreducable, indivisable entity, which will be a common denominator of all matter, namely what is referred to as a Singularity. IMHO, this is not a premise which has not happened as yet and awaiting more advancement and scientific vocab elevation - but that it is a faulty premise: it is not possible. IMHO, all things began as a Duality, including all original first cause of life forms. The reasoning here is that the universe is an intergrated system - nullfying the possibility of a Singularity. Nothing happens with one - everything can and does happen only with two or more than one as its start-up base.

This is vindicated scientifically, logically, philosophically and theologically.


Pineapples, stars and automobiles don't start with a singularity. It takes 2 to tango.

Ha! looking at the members list, I had no hope, for I saw all the leet names. I think this forum may be a first, for the fact that not everyone is an idiot.

There is no proof that a singularity is possible, and no proof that it isn't. However, I have an oppinion in this too!

A singularity has the same meaning as -/+ infinite, doesn't it?

They tell you in school that a higher number is closer to infinite or further from negative infinite.
They just say that to simplify everything. When someone says 10 is closer to infinite than 1, that sounds true. However, the truth is, they are both the same. Something calculated may seem like a singularity, but that is just because the calculation is either rounded, or the processor is too slow to finish the pattern (a never ending pattern that is, which the processor cannot finish the pattern no matter what).

Therefor, a singularity is impossible in my oppinion, as it can never be reached.

The more you analyze, the more you realize there is no absolute in life. It seems there is, but dig deeper, and you will notice.

There are a few basic things... like... you are alive or dead. But what shade of alive are you? Are you nearly dead, or are you a newborn baby?

1D is a point of infinite. Create a 1D cartoon to prove me wrong.

There is no such thing as a triality... as you know.
It is one end to the other.

--------------------------------Signature

I am a strange, 13 year old loop.

 

[Dan (Edmond)]

A magnetic monopole is a sigularity, but they are only created in labs, for... somewhere close to a less than a nanosecond. Maybe.