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 

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 
  Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM
  Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb 

  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.


  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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to