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.domain.name.hidden
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 <stathisp.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty <mpeaty.domain.name.hidden> 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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Mar 10 2007 - 12:43:06 PST