Re: Is Space-Time a Continuum in Reality?

Spaceman schreef:
Erwin Moller wrote:
Spaceman schreef:
disassembler wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:18 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
disassembler wrote:
The Space-Time surrounding my people is Real
The space is real, the time is abstracted from motion
of the objects in the space.
There is no "spacetime or space-time" there is
space, and time is what we use to measure the
rate of motion in space.

Science = space and timing of motion in space.
Scifi = space-time.
:)
Thanks

SO how big should be a singularity from a Black Hole?
A singularity is a gigantic joke to the entire Universe.
No such thing exists at all.
A Black hole is formed when too much mass has gathered
in one area, after a certain amount of pressure, the atoms can not
even vibrate or resonate enough to reflect nor trasnmit
light.
No singularity bologna needed at all.
Just mass and pressure.
Hi Spaceman,

What makes you so sure?
And why is it legions of physisist don't agree with you?


Hi Spaceman,

A singularity is an physical impossibility.

Maybe in your (classic?) physiscs. Read on.

How can you physically prove an object with a
dimension of 0, length, 0 height and 0 width, exists at all?

Maybe throw in a few more dimensions?
I don't know.

They are using the old "this exists" and you can not prove
it does not bull***.

Agree on that one.

But a black hole is not a neutronstar either.
It is clear 'your' physics is not describing accurately what black hole is. Your normal physics about presure and mass: are they tested when you put the mass of several suns on a point of a needle? (That was an angeljoke) ;-)

I mean, what happens with presure and mass if the neutrons are pressed together futher?
I am not claiming I know, but do you? Will our classic laws for presure and mass still apply?
New physics is often about finding new 'rules/laws' when looking at extreme situations.
A famous example is Einsteins relativity: It didn't excactly prove Newtons laws of mechanics/mass/attraction is totally wrong, it just showed Newtons laws get more and more wrong at high speeds.


Sadly for them I am pulling the, If it exists, prove it.

That is of course a valid call.
But can you prove Betelgeuze exists? You only see some light.
Physics is filled with indirect 'proofs'.
Hard proof only exists in mathematics, not in the 'real' world.

and they don't like that since they can not prove it exists
at all.
The singularity = God.

Please, leave God out of this. It is nonsense and an insult to say physicist who think singularities exists have the same mental abilities as religious people.

They have resorted to a religion, instead of a science.
I just like science more than religion when it comes to physics.
They have 0 proof for the 0 dimensional object.


Well, I don't think many will claim they know 100% sure singularities exist: it is just a model used in an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Not a solid fact.
I don't think you'll find a serious physisist who claim (s)he understand all there is to know about black holes. Black holes are not excactly easily created and manipulated in a laboratory.


I am curious: Do quarks exist? They have never been observed directly.
Or the Casimir effect? It has been observed, but you need to accept 'the fact' that matter can be created for a short time out of nothing to explain it. Does that totally fit into our well known laws of presure and mass? But it IS observed.

I mean to say this: there is a LOT of strange stuff going on the last century in physics. For me personally: too much to claim a singularity cannot exist because it has no width/height/depth, allthough I must admit I cannot wrap my mind around it (but I cannot wrap my mind around that double slit experiment either, or the whole quantummechanics that followed.).

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
.

Quantcast