Re: Is Space-Time a Continuum in Reality?

Erwin Moller wrote:
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) ;-)

The angeljoke is the same as the singularity joke.
The fact is that with the correct amount of gravity, pressure and mass.
The mass becomes an immovable mass, (no vibrations of motions
that would reflect nor transmit light can occur.)
It is not against physics at all, it actually fits physical reality quite
well.
A lot better than a singularity bologna does.


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?

Yes classic laws have never been shown to be wrong yet.
Classic laws are even what allow atomic explosions to occur.
The chain reaction was a classics physics theory.


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.

No it has never proven such.
It has used rubber rulers and length contraction bull*** only.
When using all forces that are Newton based and all absolute
measurements. Newton still works perfectally even at any speed.
Infact Newton stuff works even at FTL speeds which we all
know Einsten bull*** won't allow at all because it breaks down
like a paper bag in a hurricane.
..

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.

Correct,
I am merely saying my theory of Black Holes is based upon more
solid physics and does not need any "imaginary" singularity bologna.


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.

Singulartities are nonsense.
Why would I have to leave God out if Singularities have been
proven in the same amount God has?


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.

Correct.
They can only form where there is so much mass and gravity
and density occuring that all motion is stopped within.


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.

No, I do not believe Quarks just pop into existance.
Matter can not be "created"
That violates the conservation of mass/energy
I have always stated there is stuff too small to detect until
it gathers in a large enough amount to be "detected".



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.).

The "strange stuff" has been created by limiting thought to only work
one way. (The Einstein way) and ignore the original laws that have worked
perfectally and still work perfectally today when all the facts about the
effect
are found.

You start by realizing the clocks malfunctioned and keep using
absolute time and absolute distances and it all follows classic laws
all over again wonderfully.



.