Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

Dancing David said:
Just to clarify something, a singularity is not a mathematical point. I thought it had a dimension of or less than the Planck length. So while that is very small it is not a mathematical point, even in our space time.

Correct?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true, but the physicists here might clarify. A singularity in mathematics occurs (at a point) when some mathematical property is undefined, like the value, tangent or second derivative (for example) of some function. It has been my assumption that when physicists talk about singularities they are mathematical, so that some physical reality within GR is undefined. So, it has been my assumption that so called cosmological singularities exist when in the mathematics of GR, a singularity occurs. Is that not true?
 
Perpetual Student said:
A singularity in mathematics occurs (at a point) when some mathematical property is undefined, like the value, tangent or second derivative (for example) of some function. It has been my assumption that when physicists talk about singularities they are mathematical, so that some physical reality within GR is undefined. So, it has been my assumption that so called cosmological singularities exist when in the mathematics of GR, a singularity occurs. Is that not true?
Click to expand...
That's true.

In mathematics, the singularities you most often run into are points of a space that's known independently of the functions that have singularities. In general relativity, however, the geometry of spacetime is not known independently: It's (partly) defined by the metric. Where the metric is undefined, so is spacetime. Hence the singularities of general relativity are holes in spacetime, not points of spacetime.

Not all holes in spacetime are singularities, though. The precise definition of a singularity in spacetime is mathematically subtle and highly technical.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.
Click to expand...

No grudges,it's just that you keep posting entertaining nonsense.I have nothing against you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What exactly have you "accomplished" in your life that's so damn important to you, let alone the whole world anyway? FYI, I measure my accomplishments as a husband of over 20 years, a father for more than 18 years and the fact I've kept a roof over their head and kept them fed and provided them with a loving home. I measure my accomplishments in terms of being self employed for more than 17 years, and for being able to live in such a beautiful environment and raise my family here. I don't really care what you think of me personally, but your emotional need to villianize me and anyone you disagree with on some particular topic (do we even disagree about the theory of evolution for instance?) is really a pathetic debate tactic. The fact you're turning your attentions to me personally just demonstrates that emotional need you all have to attack the individual rather than the issues themselves. It's really an intriguing study of the human psyche, and the need of the human psyche to see everything in terms of "black and white", and to viallinize the greatest "threat" to their current belief system with a passion. Just out of morbid curiosity, have you even read "Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven, or are you just winging this as you go?
Click to expand...

Bully for you.I have raised my kids,worked and paid off my mortgage.I didn't teach my kids that the Sun has a solid iron surface though.I'm one up on you.
 
Perpetual Student said:
This discussion has nothing to do with "faith." We live in a world with thousands of physicists and cosmologists who are constantly checking, cross-checking and rechecking their theories and observations. They are not part-time enthusiasts whose real job is salesman or computer programmer; they are professionals, with many years of training in the areas we are discussing here. Every one of them would cherish the opportunity of being credited with having contributed or changed something important in their field. Yes, history has shown that new ideas are sometimes difficult to accept for those dedicated to an existing dogma, but science moves on and better models ultimately prevail.

When you can tell me convincingly that you have a basic understanding of the meaning of all the terms in the following equation and are capable of discussing its implications, then you will have some credibility -- otherwise you remain nothing more than a persistent crank!

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]
Click to expand...

My math does not go as far as that equation,could you explain it to me,Micheal?
 
Dancing David said:
Thanks, so are black holes singularities or modeled as such? We don't know?
Click to expand...
There are two ways of speaking about it.

Black holes contain a singularity. That's the usual way of speaking, because we're looking at the black hole from far away, so it looks to us as though the black hole begins at its event horizon (Schwarzschild radius).

We can also speak of the singularities as black holes. That's a common way of speaking when the focus is mathematical rather than astronomical, but I think it's a source of confusion because most people don't understand the mathematical definition(s) of singularities in spacetime.

When relativists/cosmologists/mathematicians use spherical coordinates to describe the black hole using Einstein's theory of relativity, the event horizon turns out to be what is called a coordinate singularity: an accidental singularity that can be repaired by changing the mathematical description to use a less familiar system of coordinates. The singularity at the heart of a black hole is an essential singularity: it cannot be repaired by going to a new set of coordinates or by extending the spacetime manifold in any way that would satisfy the mathematical constraints on spacetime.

From your earlier post:
Dancing David said:
Just to clarify something, a singularity is not a mathematical point. I thought it had a dimension of or less than the Planck length. So while that is very small it is not a mathematical point, even in our space time.

Correct?
Click to expand...
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, a singularity is not a mathematical point because it isn't a point of the spacetime manifold at all.

It is reasonable to expect the spacetime singularities of non-quantum GR to disappear once we have a good quantum theory of general relativity. If so, then the singularities of today's theory will probably correspond (in that future theory) to a region of quantum spacetime whose dimensions are on the order of a Planck length, as you suggested. At the moment, that's just speculation. We don't know.
 
dafydd said:
My math does not go as far as that equation,could you explain it to me,Micheal?
Click to expand...

Sorry. my background is in mathematics, not physics, so my understanding of GR is quite general. Mozina has made so many assertions about GR, that I was trying to pin him down as to the degree of his understanding of the mathematics of GR, without which one can only be a laymen, like me. However, for your entertainment, this LINK contains a fairly good explanation of the GR equation.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Sorry. my background is in mathematics, not physics, so my understanding of GR is quite general. Mozina has made so many assertions about GR, that I was trying to pin him down as to the degree of his understanding of the mathematics of GR, without which one can only be a laymen, like me. However, for your entertainment, this LINK contains a fairly good explanation of the GR equation.
Click to expand...

Read my post,I was asking Micheal to explain it to me.I´m not holding my breath.Thank you for the link.I find it so amusing to read Micheal´s pontifications on this subject.He can´t even do basic maths.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Also the "concept of neutron repulsion" is just that - a concept of Dr. Oliver Manuel with no evidence
Click to expand...
Experimentally the neutron-neutron, proton-proton and neutron proton potentials are observed to be very similar once the effects of Coulmob repulsion are accounted for.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Yes,and I'm learning a lot and having a giggle at the same time.MM seems incapable of learning anything.
Click to expand...

I've learned that one simply cannot separate man from his "faith in the unseen", no matter how impotent that unseen entity might be on Earth in controlled experimentation. That's about all I've learned. :(

FYI, my busiest two times of the year are Late August/Early September when school starts up (now) and January. This kind of faith in the unseen will live on long after I'm dead, so it will just have to wait. :)

I've also learned that ridicule is pretty much all your folks really have to offer. Your maths are like the maths related to astrology or numerology. They have no tangible effect on anything here on Earth in a real science experiment. They're useless in the lab, useless outside of your "religion" and useless in general. What should that tell you?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
There are two ways of speaking about it.

Black holes contain a singularity.
Click to expand...

If so, it would necessarily need to achieve infinite density. The Pauli exclusion principle prohibits that from occurring.

It is reasonable to expect the spacetime singularities of non-quantum GR to disappear once we have a good quantum theory of general relativity. If so, then the singularities of today's theory will probably correspond (in that future theory) to a region of quantum spacetime whose dimensions are on the order of a Planck length, as you suggested.
Click to expand...

If so, then it's not a point and not a "singularity" since it has a finite volume.

At the moment, that's just speculation. We don't know.
Click to expand...

These religions are always so "confusing" because there isn't any actual agreement in the final analysis, except perhaps "we don't know".

There no actual way for matter/energy to achieve infinite density so a "singularity" is completely out of the question. It's simply a mathematical curiosity, much like epicycles and such. Once you realize these mathematical mythos have no relationship to "physical reality" as we understand it, it's easy to let go. Mathematicians however seem to have an almost 'emotional' attachment to something that simply cannot physically exist.

http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I've learned that one simply cannot separate man from his "faith in the unseen", no matter how impotent that unseen entity might be on Earth in controlled experimentation. That's about all I've learned. :(
Click to expand...
You have learnt nothing :(
There is the empirical evidence that dark matter and dark energy exist.
There is the empirical evidence that there probably was an inflationary period in the early universe.

According to your personal redefintion of empirical to suit your own "non-faith in the unseen", stars do not exist: Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist? :jaw-dropp!

Michael Mozina said:
I've also learned that ridicule is pretty much all your folks really have to offer. Your maths are like the maths related to astrology or numerology. They have no tangible effect on anything here on Earth in a real science experiment. They're useless in the lab, useless outside of your "religion" and useless in general. What should that tell you?
Click to expand...
This tells us that you cannot understand the empirical evidence for dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

You have a personal belief that these cannot exist and so have taken the utterly ridiculous and illogical step of redefining the English language to suit yourself. This has been pointed out to you for months over hundreds of posts in several thread in this forum. It is probably that this has been mentioned to you over the many years that you have been posting in forum. Thus ridicule is the appropriate answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom