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: [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
