On 9/15/2011 1:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2011 9:49 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2011 6:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:18 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 9/14/2011 3:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

To me it seems best to understand the beginning of the universe as the
same thing as the end of the universe - a singularity out of which
order emerges. Not nothingness but thingness, and more importantly,
the experienceness of thingness. That is what needs no explanation
because it precedes the division of anything from anything else so
there is nothing that is not already explained. Explanation can only
be conceived of outside of the singularity where things can perceive
some phenomena but not others, so that they want to translate the
unknown into their native experience.
There are no singularities in physics - only in the equations; an indication the equation
no longer applies.
It would make sense that singularity transcends purely physical


On the contrary, the singularity is in the description. Which is why no physicist believes the description (General Relativity) is valid.


Ummm, really? Let me see if I understand this claim, no physicist believes that General Relativity (GR) is valid or no physicists believe that there are solutions to the field equations of GR that are invalid? What about Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking? They wrote the paper that showed a proof that the field equations of GR generate singularities for relatively innocuous and plausible conditions and yet they are still great proponents of GR. So... what is the source of your opinion re "no physicist believes ..."?

The importance of their paper was that it showed GR predicted a singularity under very general conditions. Before that,it had been widely assumed that the singularity prediction was just an artifact of assuming perfectly spherical 3-geometry with no rotation. Of course I can't really vouch for what every physicist ever believed. But I was in graduate school at the time studying GR and nobody I knew, including Penrose whom I met and my fellow students, drew any conclusion except that GR breaks down and does not apply in those circumstances. And no one was surprised by this. There was already an active search for a quantum theory of gravity, which it was assumed would avoid singularities.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to