Cher Quentin,
let me paraphrase (big):

so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize. 
Especially if it sounds helpful.Then  
some mathematically loaded minds calculated within this assumption with 
quantities taken from other assumptions (pardon me: quantizing within other 
models in science). 
Then someone takes the results for real and examines if it "gives" infinity - a 
good game in the assumed topic. 
Then Olala: there it is. So: call it singularity. What? the 3+th level of an 
assumption, already taken as a fact in science. 
Careful analysis can show similar 'evolution' of other fiction into scientific 
facts. 

I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) I happily 
use the results and even DID contribute to it, but when it comes to 
understanding - or at least evaluate reasonability, I use Occam's COMB to 
remove the added conclusions upon assumptions.
No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary.

John M
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Quentin Anciaux 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM
  Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb 
question.



  Hi John,

  Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations 
  describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does 
  the "infinity" is "real" (we must still be in accordance about what it means) 
  is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of reality, 
  singularity existence is a real question.

  Quentin

  On Friday 09 March 2007 23:37:49 John Mikes wrote:
  > i ENVY YOU, guys, to "know" so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
  > I would not go further than "according to what is said about them, they may
  > wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity".
  > Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much
  > Dark Matter (the assumed), we just "don't know" - it all may be neatly
  > stuffed
  > in and escape from the habitual description of the 'singularity' as an
  > indiscernible
  > structural view, - or - as seemingly you assume: they homogenize (paste?)
  > it all into a - well - singularity-content.
  >
  > Whoever KNOWS more about singularities, BHs, Dark Matter, should
  > speak up - please: NO assumptions ('it got to be's) or deductions of such!
  >
  > John M
  >
  > On 3/8/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  > > On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  > >
  > > MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
  > >
  > > > 1/   [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
  > > > within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
  > > > hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the singularity,
  > > > would it not?
  > >
  > > Yes, but it could take a very long time to get there in a massive enough
  > > black hole.
  > >
  > > Stathis Papaioannou
  >
  > 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to