Liz: This is the 'other' John. - *They *(black holes and all other figments we 'believe' in our scientific (physcalistic etc.) WORLD(s) - D O - exist, if not otherwise: in our mind (whatever we call so). * In Reality? *(First tell me, please, what you call Reality?) . I agree with Brent's denial (if true?) of singularities - in MY definition, - as having NO discernable physical data (size, borders, etc.) consequently not perceivable in our usual ways (again: we can TALK about them, so they EXIST in our thoughts). I take exception, however, with his restriction "PRIOR" to the BB - since the fable of the Big Bang includes the startup of what we call time as well.
I don't refer to the black holes either (not in the center of 'universes', not elsewhere) since those are quite ingenious figment to save the 'face' of (scientific - physical/cosmological) calculations. Not in the Center and not around them. (Expansion: Black energy, matter, whatever, we cannot perceive just contemplate.) John M On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 26 September 2014 08:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The singularity is an inference from general relativity extrapolated to >> arbitrarily short distances and high densities...where it cannot apply >> because it's not consistent with quantum mechanics. When your equation >> predicts a singularity, it just means you've gone beyond the domain of >> applicability of the equation. There's no singularity prior to the Big >> Bang and there's no singularity at the center of a black hole. >> >> > Yes. It seems unlikely that nature allow infinite curvature, infinite > density and so on. > > However, there are definitely massive objects around the universe, which > according to general relativity have event horizons around them (a less > contentious claim than there being singularities inside them). These > objects certainly walk and cluck like black holes, unless some unknown > effect prevents them collapsing to the point where an EH forms they will be > like them to any external observers - the article claims that EHs don't > form, but that the star in question explodes. As I asked before, wouldn't > that cause a huge emission of energy above what's observed from supernovae? > > Also the article doesn't say anything about supermassive BHs, I think? > > Anyway, has anyone with the relevant physics knowledge examined the > original articles? > > arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525 > > and > > arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837 > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
