Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Thought on singularities

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:47:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

I always thought that a literal infinite amount of energy or mass would entail that there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in to be compressed in a singularity. Unless it is a result of an inverse infinite value, like infinite density within an infinitely small space. But, being a layman, I don't hold too much confidence in my own understanding in this matter.

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I definitely see where you are saying this (movement would also entail time, too), but is it really defined as "zero" volume and not "infinitely small" volume?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:52:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I don't think singularities exist as you describe, while I suspect it's possible.

There is definite evidence to show that black holes exist, which I have no intention to dispute, but zero size and infinite Gravity is likely due more the failure of the mathematics involved than it being an actual description of what's going on.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:52:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:47:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

I always thought that a literal infinite amount of energy or mass would entail that there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in to be compressed in a singularity. Unless it is a result of an inverse infinite value, like infinite density within an infinitely small space. But, being a layman, I don't hold too much confidence in my own understanding in this matter.

I don't exactly understand what you are trying to convey...


(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I definitely see where you are saying this (movement would also entail time, too), but is it really defined as "zero" volume and not "infinitely small" volume?

It is definitely "zero" volume, since density = mass / volume, so if density = infinite, the denominator has to equal infinite. Ergo, volume is infinite if there is non-zero mass in the singularity - which is present. And it is defined as a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and temperature, and zero volume.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:52:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I don't think singularities exist as you describe, while I suspect it's possible.

There is definite evidence to show that black holes exist, which I have no intention to dispute, but zero size and infinite Gravity is likely due more the failure of the mathematics involved than it being an actual description of what's going on.

Perhaps, but the majority of cosmologists agree that singularities exist as result of General Relativity. It was actually based on a study by Hawking and Penrose (Hawkings Ph.D. study).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 4:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:52:45 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:47:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

I always thought that a literal infinite amount of energy or mass would entail that there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in to be compressed in a singularity. Unless it is a result of an inverse infinite value, like infinite density within an infinitely small space. But, being a layman, I don't hold too much confidence in my own understanding in this matter.

I don't exactly understand what you are trying to convey...

Sorry. Firstly, are we referring to "infinite" as a concept or as some kind of actual value that is approaching infinity?

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I definitely see where you are saying this (movement would also entail time, too), but is it really defined as "zero" volume and not "infinitely small" volume?

It is definitely "zero" volume, since density = mass / volume, so if density = infinite, the denominator has to equal infinite. Ergo, volume is infinite if there is non-zero mass in the singularity - which is present. And it is defined as a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and temperature, and zero volume.

[a number] / 0 = infinity? I did not think that was the case. It doesn't make sense to me that would be the case since reversing it, infinity * 0 = 0. If there is some backing somewhere for this notion, I would be happy to see it.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 5:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:59:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:52:45 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:47:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

I always thought that a literal infinite amount of energy or mass would entail that there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in to be compressed in a singularity. Unless it is a result of an inverse infinite value, like infinite density within an infinitely small space. But, being a layman, I don't hold too much confidence in my own understanding in this matter.

I don't exactly understand what you are trying to convey...

Sorry. Firstly, are we referring to "infinite" as a concept or as some kind of actual value that is approaching infinity?

The singularity would perceive the latter, no?


(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I definitely see where you are saying this (movement would also entail time, too), but is it really defined as "zero" volume and not "infinitely small" volume?

It is definitely "zero" volume, since density = mass / volume, so if density = infinite, the denominator has to equal infinite. Ergo, volume is infinite if there is non-zero mass in the singularity - which is present. And it is defined as a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and temperature, and zero volume.

[a number] / 0 = infinity? I did not think that was the case. It doesn't make sense to me that would be the case since reversing it, infinity * 0 = 0. If there is some backing somewhere for this notion, I would be happy to see it.

Infinity is not a number, so Idk if numerical laws would apply. But the singularity's volume is defined as being "zero," and density as "infinite." Formal operations of calculus would suggest that division by zero takes a value of positive/negative infinite.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But that's irrelevant anyway.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 6:22:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 5:03:19 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:59:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:52:45 PM, tejretics wrote:

Sorry. Firstly, are we referring to "infinite" as a concept or as some kind of actual value that is approaching infinity?

The singularity would perceive the latter, no?

That's what I would suspect.

It is definitely "zero" volume, since density = mass / volume, so if density = infinite, the denominator has to equal infinite. Ergo, volume is infinite if there is non-zero mass in the singularity - which is present. And it is defined as a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and temperature, and zero volume.

[a number] / 0 = infinity? I did not think that was the case. It doesn't make sense to me that would be the case since reversing it, infinity * 0 = 0. If there is some backing somewhere for this notion, I would be happy to see it.

Infinity is not a number, so Idk if numerical laws would apply. But the singularity's volume is defined as being "zero," and density as "infinite." Formal operations of calculus would suggest that division by zero takes a value of positive/negative infinite.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But that's irrelevant anyway.

So how could the volume be zero, then? Wouldn't the volume actually be approaching zero as temperature is approaching infinity? Since the values are necessarily constantly increasing/decreasing towards infinity, wouldn't they have to rest at some static, real value, thus there existing *some* volume to accommodate the required movement of particles?

If my understanding is wrong, my apologies. I haven't gotten terribly far into physics or beyond the basics of calculus.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 9:07:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

Those aren't nearly that hard, or contradictory. Hard is Negative Absolute Zero which we've made, and is somehow hotter, not colder, than any positive temperature system. So if we can make something absurd as negative kelvin I don't see any logical reason a singularity with infinite density that seems absurd to us, but is logically consistent in the Math of Relativity wouldn't exist.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 4:08:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 4:52:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I don't think singularities exist as you describe, while I suspect it's possible.

There is definite evidence to show that black holes exist, which I have no intention to dispute, but zero size and infinite Gravity is likely due more the failure of the mathematics involved than it being an actual description of what's going on.

That's my view as well. Some speculate that there is a singularity inside every black hole but this has never been established and may never be. I favour the view that a singularity is impossible because it results in infinities. The problem of what happens to the mass and gravitational collapse inside a black hole can be solved by time dilation. The mass collapses into a pointlike space but never quite produces a singularity because of extreme time dilation. The black hole eventually evaporates after a long, long time (externally) so that there is no contradiction.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 4:19:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 4:08:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 4:52:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

I don't think singularities exist as you describe, while I suspect it's possible.

There is definite evidence to show that black holes exist, which I have no intention to dispute, but zero size and infinite Gravity is likely due more the failure of the mathematics involved than it being an actual description of what's going on.

That's my view as well. Some speculate that there is a singularity inside every black hole but this has never been established and may never be. I favour the view that a singularity is impossible because it results in infinities. The problem of what happens to the mass and gravitational collapse inside a black hole can be solved by time dilation. The mass collapses into a pointlike space but never quite produces a singularity because of extreme time dilation. The black hole eventually evaporates after a long, long time (externally) so that there is no contradiction.

I thought I'd also add to this, Black holes don't necessarily need to be singularities in the mathematical sense, simply that they only need to have the mass within it's Swarzchild's radius (a solution for the tensor that produces enough curvature to allow light to orbit).

In reality, when a gravitational collapse of a star occurs; there are a number of factors that prevent a full collapse; not being large enough to overcome electrostatic repulsion is a primary one; then the force related to Pauli's exclusion principle which if not over come produces Neutron Stars. It has been postulated that there could be exotic states of matter also related to Pauli's exclusion principle that would produce the Quark equivalent of neutron stars (although to date, I don't think that there is any evidence for these).

String theory offers a novel solution in that the mass and energy are all wrapped up in a small, but non-zero sized sub plank string containing the mass and energy.

Indeed, we don' truly know enough about quarks and subatomic particles to know whether they can be squashed enough to have zero size!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 9:59:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

A better definition of singularity is a region identified not by where it is but by boundaries of where it is not
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 3:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature? :

Hmm.. gravitational singularity??

First, is this something that has been observed in real life by science? I read most of the Wikipedia article on singularities, and boy there are many, confusing, I see no use for it (unless you can give me one?) but what I'm asking you is that; did the subject of a singularity come up to build more nonsense confusion on the BB-theory, or is this something someone witnessed and documented within our universe, our reality through science? Like: "Woe, did you see that, .. a singularity!" or is this strictly a mathematical construct to build on the BB-theory?

Wikipedia - A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field of a celestial body become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Never mind, it is mathematical BS to build on Special Relativity in support of the BB-theory, or "let's find a way to convince ourselves that God our Creator doesn't exist."

In mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime is a combination of Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Although initially developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski for Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity

Just by observing the human body with the trillions of cells defining it, working in unison to maintain it etc. the eyes, the brain, the mind receiving and sending information to and from the brain it is obvious that the universe is an extremely complex work of physics, mathematics and art. What God-hater scientists and physicists create in their minds has no impact on the universe as God created it, except when they act on those beliefs, and start destroying both the universe starting with the earth, and the image of God that man once had in his mind.

So yes, man has the ability to observe Gods creation, and copy it (robotics, airplanes, etc.) and even use part of what they learned and create their own mathematical/science fiction universe in their minds, and put it in books, teach it to their children as real. Hey, don't believe it, go back 13.75 billion years and prove us wrong, .. lol.

(1) infinite temperature? Obviously whoever made up that remark didn't understand the meaning of infinite.

OK, here is infinite; close your eyes and vision a black hole.

* The ability to envision a black hole is the Creative Mind.
* The Mind is the 'Ground of Being', our mind we use, like having borrowed it, but actually it's part of God, only wiped clear of all other information except for the basics (to keep the body functioning-subconscious), .. awareness and a very basic creative ability which can evolve according to each individuals desire/choice..
* The black hole, or whatever you imagined, is finite, and exists outside of space or time, in the mind.
Until you add something for the Black-hole to reside in like space, and stars next to it, a little planet called earth, .. the only thing exists is the Black-hole. The rest we can add from what we have observed, or make it all up.

Like physicists do to justify the Big-bang story, they can create in their minds a universe of their own, and keep tweaking the math (because it is only in their minds, not in Gods creation/reality we reside in, this universe) where it kind of makes sense, it does not have to actually work, nor do they have to worry about it working, and it can get really intricate, complex with one God-hater building upon the others illusion-delusion. You know, like the LHC, it looks cool and wonderful, but it doesn't have to work. It can be there to support the religion like any other temples of any other religion.

So infinite temperature, zero volume, muons traveling from quasars trillions of light years away and arriving yesterday, it all possible in ones imagination, and it may even work according to that imagination according to the set rules in that imagination, but is that how the universe is? Not from the point of reality I see it from.
Now again, I could believe it to a point where I could strap a jacket of bombs around me and blow myself up in a promise to be able to enter into a black hole, and later shoot out of there as a twinkling little star!

That's why religion is dangerous, you could be convinced that Hailey's Comet is a space ship, and the only way to get on it is if you kill yourself while wearing Nikes and then you'll become one with the universe, or that even with all the obvious facts, with you being a creator yourself, that a robot was created, but that you, which they used to copy the robot from has evolved from some muddy primordial soup leaking from a rock.

It's either faith based on evidence with substance, or blind faith. One comes by observation and some seeking and knocking (called science), and the other by blind-faith which religion requires, .. actually demands or either they call you stupid, or off with your head!
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 3:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 9:59:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

A better definition of singularity is a region identified not by where it is but by boundaries of where it is not : :

and dee-em answered: The boundary is the universe. :

I thought the universe is a singularity!? Remember the commandment: "there is nothing, or no-thing outside the universe, this is it!" - Rev. Krauss
It also doesn't gain weight, nor size and its value = 0, so mathematically it doesn't exist, except as a singularity, .. in Minkowski Spacetime .. lol.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 8:47:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist?
What expert intuition should I use for that belief, Tej? What evidence should I use for disbelief? What action would I take differently if I believed or disbelieved, which I otherwise would not?

Without strong, empirical intuitions born of analysis and observation, all I can do with speculations at the edge of esoteric science is conjecture ignorantly.

I'm not disinterested; and artistically one could take the idea in many directions. But when discussing nature in an area far outside my vocational expertise, to whom could my inexpert opinion possibly matter, and how could it help anyone's appreciation of the topic?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 4:30:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 8:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist?
What expert intuition should I use for that belief, Tej? What evidence should I use for disbelief? What action would I take differently if I believed or disbelieved, which I otherwise would not?

Without strong, empirical intuitions born of analysis and observation, all I can do with speculations at the edge of esoteric science is conjecture ignorantly.

I'm not disinterested; and artistically one could take the idea in many directions. But when discussing nature in an area far outside my vocational expertise, to whom could my inexpert opinion possibly matter, and how could it help anyone's appreciation of the topic?

Exactly, to what ends does the layperson mean when they venture into the Science forum asking "belief"questions on subject matter far above their level of understanding?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 6:04:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist? I have heard physicists (e.g. Hawking) state that General Relativity would entail the existence of singularities.[http://www.hawking.org.uk...] A singularity is traditionally conceived of as having:

(1) Infinite temperature

(2) Zero volume

They seem explicitly contradictory to me, since temperature is defined according to movement along a dimensional axis.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] But "movement" seems incoherent sans any volume, so how does/did the singularity retain infinite temperature?

Usually in math if the result is infinite, unless you are dealing with infinite sets, that is generally a sign something is not right.

I do not think there is any infinite anything in the physical universe. I feel these results of zero volume and infinite temperature are from the mathematical formulas and not the actualities.

Black holes technically are just objects dense enough have a gravitational well that light bends so much in that it orbits the object. Creating a photo sphere region for non spinning black holes. (equilateral band in spinning black holes) And that isn't as dense as one might think.

I think amazing things happen in and around black holes. But when the descriptions get into descriptions of inviting and stuff I think it is a stretch.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 6:08:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 4:30:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2015 8:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist?
What expert intuition should I use for that belief, Tej? What evidence should I use for disbelief? What action would I take differently if I believed or disbelieved, which I otherwise would not?

Without strong, empirical intuitions born of analysis and observation, all I can do with speculations at the edge of esoteric science is conjecture ignorantly.

Exactly, to what ends does the layperson mean when they venture into the Science forum asking "belief" questions on subject matter far above their level of understanding?

Exactly back at you, Danne. :) I don't offer opinions on the efficacy of brain surgery techniques, or Kazakhstani criminal law. Why should I even have an opinion about the legitimacy of an esoteric conjecture at the edges of current astrophysics? And other than flapping it about and displaying my ignorance, what would I do with that opinion if I had it? :D

Actually, I once briefly did some work with astrophysicists on black hole detection, and know something of how they can be observed, but science journalism still digests and presents better expertise on that, than mine.

And as for how you'd confirm whether the universe had a gravitational anomaly in its early history, all I could do is rehash expert scientific opinions. I don't feel entitled to an opinion of my own.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 7:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 6:08:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/10/2015 4:30:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2015 8:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist?
What expert intuition should I use for that belief, Tej? What evidence should I use for disbelief? What action would I take differently if I believed or disbelieved, which I otherwise would not?

Without strong, empirical intuitions born of analysis and observation, all I can do with speculations at the edge of esoteric science is conjecture ignorantly.

Exactly, to what ends does the layperson mean when they venture into the Science forum asking "belief" questions on subject matter far above their level of understanding?

Exactly back at you, Danne. :) I don't offer opinions on the efficacy of brain surgery techniques, or Kazakhstani criminal law. Why should I even have an opinion about the legitimacy of an esoteric conjecture at the edges of current astrophysics? And other than flapping it about and displaying my ignorance, what would I do with that opinion if I had it? :D

Actually, I once briefly did some work with astrophysicists on black hole detection, and know something of how they can be observed, but science journalism still digests and presents better expertise on that, than mine.

And as for how you'd confirm whether the universe had a gravitational anomaly in its early history, all I could do is rehash expert scientific opinions. I don't feel entitled to an opinion of my own.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you, Ruv, I was referring to the OP.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 7:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 7:20:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2015 6:08:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/10/2015 4:30:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2015 8:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist?
What expert intuition should I use for that belief, Tej? What evidence should I use for disbelief? What action would I take differently if I believed or disbelieved, which I otherwise would not?

Without strong, empirical intuitions born of analysis and observation, all I can do with speculations at the edge of esoteric science is conjecture ignorantly.

Exactly, to what ends does the layperson mean when they venture into the Science forum asking "belief" questions on subject matter far above their level of understanding?

Exactly back at you, Danne. :) I don't offer opinions on the efficacy of brain surgery techniques, or Kazakhstani criminal law. Why should I even have an opinion about the legitimacy of an esoteric conjecture at the edges of current astrophysics? And other than flapping it about and displaying my ignorance, what would I do with that opinion if I had it? :D

Actually, I once briefly did some work with astrophysicists on black hole detection, and know something of how they can be observed, but science journalism still digests and presents better expertise on that, than mine.

And as for how you'd confirm whether the universe had a gravitational anomaly in its early history, all I could do is rehash expert scientific opinions. I don't feel entitled to an opinion of my own.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you, Ruv, I was referring to the OP.

Yes... I wasn't replying to you either... but the broader problem of critiquing emerging science without working in the field or being very well read on it. :D
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 8:52:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What the hell does any of this stuff have to do with the philosophy and ramblings of Ray Kurzweil?
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 6:08:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/10/2015 4:30:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/10/2015 8:47:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:55:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe that the universe was once a gravitational singularity / do you believe that gravitational singularities exist?
What expert intuition should I use for that belief, Tej? What evidence should I use for disbelief? What action would I take differently if I believed or disbelieved, which I otherwise would not?

Without strong, empirical intuitions born of analysis and observation, all I can do with speculations at the edge of esoteric science is conjecture ignorantly.

Exactly, to what ends does the layperson mean when they venture into the Science forum asking "belief" questions on subject matter far above their level of understanding?

Exactly back at you, Danne. :) I don't offer opinions on the efficacy of brain surgery techniques, or Kazakhstani criminal law. Why should I even have an opinion about the legitimacy of an esoteric conjecture at the edges of current astrophysics? And other than flapping it about and displaying my ignorance, what would I do with that opinion if I had it? :D

Actually, I once briefly did some work with astrophysicists on black hole detection, and know something of how they can be observed, but science journalism still digests and presents better expertise on that, than mine.

And as for how you'd confirm whether the universe had a gravitational anomaly in its early history, all I could do is rehash expert scientific opinions. I don't feel entitled to an opinion of my own. :

A comment from a truly indoctrinated mind of a religious Believer by blind faith; "I don't feel entitled to an opinion," .. or "I am not worthy to debate the Pope, Einstein, Darwin, Rev. Krauss, Rev. Richard Dawkins, I can only rehash their expert religious-scientific opinions."

Look how sure of yourself you were debating "Evidence of God" post, yet I have explained that you have no idea of God, our Creator I was presenting. You don't understand Infinite, Eternal, or the true or absolute meaning of 'nothing', or that Special Relativity is a religious construct in support of the BB-theory (as is all the other doctrines in support of the BB) yet just read your opinions on what I wrote, without even 'trying' to understand what I said.

But, .. even though you said: "Actually, I once briefly did some work with astrophysicists on black hole detection, and know something of how they can be observed," yet you don't want, or dare touch it!?

THAT my intelligent and smart friend, is 'indoctrination at its best', .. trapped in the box named: "Blind Faith", which should be required to be posted on all religious organizations, churches, colleges that make up their own gods and Creators.

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 12:05:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM, Evidence wrote:

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.

I predicted it in post #13! Lol.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 12:15:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 12:05:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM, Evidence wrote:

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.

I predicted it in post #13! Lol.

gg
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 12:15:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 12:05:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM, Evidence wrote:

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.

I predicted it in post #13! Lol.

Why can't discussion stick to the topic at hand? It has to be evangelicals coming on and shooting down cool scientific articles.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 9:15:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 12:15:52 AM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/12/2015 12:05:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM, Evidence wrote:

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.

I predicted it in post #13! Lol.

Why can't discussion stick to the topic at hand? It has to be evangelicals coming on and shooting down cool scientific articles. :

Exactly, stick to the topic as I was saying in the "Evidence of God" Post. But I guess talking about even singularities is more fun than knowing who we are and who Created us, and why are we here, and where are we going? You know, visualizing the 'Big Picture', or having the answer to everything, .. borrring.

Now where were we, .. oh yeah, singularities, .. hot topic since everyone is talking about it. But scientific Evidence of God outside of religion, .. what's that?
"Well it goes like this, .."
"Noo.. blah, blah, blah, .. nanananana .. I'm not listening!! Lalalala, .. I can't hear you!"


Sorry TheProphet, I just had to let that out, .. you are correct though.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2015 10:30:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 9:15:45 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/12/2015 12:15:52 AM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/12/2015 12:05:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM, Evidence wrote:

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.

I predicted it in post #13! Lol.

Why can't discussion stick to the topic at hand? It has to be evangelicals coming on and shooting down cool scientific articles. :

Exactly, stick to the topic as I was saying in the "Evidence of God" Post. But I guess talking about even singularities is more fun than knowing who we are and who Created us, and why are we here, and where are we going? You know, visualizing the 'Big Picture', or having the answer to everything, .. borrring.

Now where were we, .. oh yeah, singularities, .. hot topic since everyone is talking about it. But scientific Evidence of God outside of religion, .. what's that?
"Well it goes like this, .."
"Noo.. blah, blah, blah, .. nanananana .. I'm not listening!! Lalalala, .. I can't hear you!"


Sorry TheProphet, I just had to let that out, .. you are correct though.

Really, I think religious and scientific practices can co-exist without the interference with one another. What matters is that people of one belief or another not go imposing upon others.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Evidence
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 5:11:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/12/2015 10:30:03 PM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/12/2015 9:15:45 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/12/2015 12:15:52 AM, TheProphett wrote:
At 10/12/2015 12:05:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/11/2015 9:24:12 PM, Evidence wrote:

There is but ONE singularity, and He is NOT in a "point in space", but the Creator of it, and everything in that space.

I predicted it in post #13! Lol.

Why can't discussion stick to the topic at hand? It has to be evangelicals coming on and shooting down cool scientific articles. :

Exactly, stick to the topic as I was saying in the "Evidence of God" Post. But I guess talking about even singularities is more fun than knowing who we are and who Created us, and why are we here, and where are we going? You know, visualizing the 'Big Picture', or having the answer to everything, .. borrring.

Now where were we, .. oh yeah, singularities, .. hot topic since everyone is talking about it. But scientific Evidence of God outside of religion, .. what's that?
"Well it goes like this, .."
"Noo.. blah, blah, blah, .. nanananana .. I'm not listening!! Lalalala, .. I can't hear you!"


Sorry TheProphet, I just had to let that out, .. you are correct though.

Really, I think religious and scientific practices can co-exist without the interference with one another. :

But they do co-exist, that's my beef. How dare religion claim science, and dictate science, and force science to co-exist with their religious beliefs ?

What matters is that people of one belief or another not go imposing upon others. :

I agree, but why post a religious subject like singularities in the science forum? It belongs in Religion along with all the other un-evidenced religious beliefs and gods, and doctrines like the Big-bang Evolution stories. I mean if not religion, at least in a 'Debating sci-fi' section!?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau