/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1117028
I don't know. I always thought a singularity WAS a black hole.

riddle me this op, why must we accept infinity as a proper tool for working out calculations?

because its the best thing we got

Now you go.

it is the simplest explanation

Is Dr. Gregory House real?

>>1117042
That's not an answer. So much of our theoretical physics are based on the assumption that singularities not only can exist, but do.

Aren't singularities the result of observing limits approach infinity of certain mathematical functions that describe the behavior of phenomena?

>>1117045
No, it's not. A black hole is the simplest answer. A singularity is intellectual masturbation.

>>1117051
Which ones?

>>1117056
No, that's philosophy. And even then, the use of the word intellectual is tenuous at best.

>>1117055
Where did you hear that, and just what is it supposed to mean?

>>1117062
Have you ever heard of a wormhole? Or any other reality bending physics? Most of the bleeding edge of science holds the existence of singularities as a corner stone as to why they are plausible in the first place.

Singularities exist, dumb fuck. Otherwise, explain where the Big Bang came from, then. Sparticles? Suck my dick.

The big bang was a singularity. THE singularity. If singularities are impossible then just what was there? What existed before mass-energy?

>>1117073
THAT is the big question. We don't know that. Again, that's all conjecture based on the hypothesis that singularities are even possible.

>>1117078

The Big Bang was a fucking event. inb4 hurr durr semantics.

GOD DID EEET ALL YOU FAGGOTS BE BURNING IN HELL

So you see. Much of what we accept as truth is based on the existence of singularities, the only proof of which being the existence of black holes, which in themselves do not require the existence of singularities.

>>1117073
>>1117082

> troll.jpng

>>1117088

t=0

mind=blown

>>1117082
Learn2Logic, then we'll talk.

It was a simple, easily-recognizable description of the event as related to the first singularity.

oh lawl, op is trolling the shit out of /sci/, coem on, someone respond with something that will shut this guy up

singularities are the out laws of physics cause they can touch them !

>>1117103
PLEASE, please do. It's been bugging the shit out of me.

Disregard that, because I love sucking the tips of other mens penises.

>>1117111
u mad troll

you know Teory of Relativity can't explained shit

>>1117096

"It was a simple, easily-recognizable description of the event as related to the first singularity."

And you know it was the first singularity and not a series of infinite regressions because....?

The Big Bang covered what happened after time existed. We don't know what the fuck IS the origin of our universe. Singularities are what he hypothesize to have caused the Big Bang.

smd semanticfag

>>1117114
That's true...except the interactions of all the stars and galaxies in the universe...also the bending of light...the warping of space...oh! And time dilation...but other than that nothing.

>>1117115
What is time if not a measure of change in relation to space. Time can exist only in space.

>>1117120

your two-letter name is extremely obnoxious and giving me a headache. maybe you should pinch your sinuses and talk in a nasally voice too.

ITT I think I am smarter than Einstein and everyone since

Also I think that when a later improved theory and an earlier theory disagree, this must mean the first one is the correct one

derp

Singularities (black holes).

Aren't they just places where light is bent so much that it doesn't escape? Places within the (Scharwchild?) Radius?

I'm cunfuzed.

>>1117126

bitches dont know bout my singular spacetime

Another highlight of Einstein's Special Relativity" Gravity is merely the observable effect of warped space. There is no such thing as a graviton.

op is technically right. Singularies don't make any sense as a physical object. Fortunately nobody really thinks they are, it's just a pointer that we need to find a better theory.

>>1117128
Actually I'm trying to show that no one is as smart as Einstein and that we've been misinterpreting his great work.

>>1117131
Note: A singularity is NOT a Black Hole.

>>1117136

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GRAVITON BECAUSE EINSTEIN PROPOSED HURR DURR THEORY WHICH MEANS THIS APPLIES TO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE UNIVERSE

inb4 u mad

>>1117128
what a bout them Quantum Mechanics

derp

>>1117131
lol u dumb

>>1117138
That's my point exactly! Why then do we accept that they exist if we know they don't?

>>1117141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

It's a great jumping off point.

>>1117145

And you know they don't exist because...?

You're just as much clueless as the rest of us when it comes to figuring out the origin of the universe, which is where HYPOTHESIZED singularities come into play.

Although I believe there's a higher chance of them existing than there is of them not existing. The Big Bang was proven to have occurred, tru story. What came before it?

YOU AND I MAY NEVER KNOW WITHIN OUR LIFETIME.

There is also no such thing as a chronoton. Time, like gravity, is merely an observable effect.

OP if youre so smart why dont you even though it yesterday?

>>1117140
>>1117144
Well unless someone explains the difference, I'm not going to learn it, derp.

>>1117152
OUT NOTHING SOMETHING EXPLODE AND EVERYTHING CAME OUT AND THE WORLD WAS MADE!

>>1117152
Because they can't.

Can the atoms in your body exist, in their complete form, in two places at the same time? No. Why not? Because that's impossible.

U MAD?

>>1117163

I would ask why that's impossible but then you would just go WLC on me and say AN EXPLANATION IS NOT NEEDED FOR AN EXPLANATION FOR IT TO BE THE BEST EXPLANATION

disregarding algebraic notation, x can only be x, and not y. x=x, it can never equal y. blue is blue, grass is green, the word food is the word food and not the word bed BECAUSE IT IS.

btw, they can. PARALLEL/OSCILLATING UNIVERSES/QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION/SUCK MY DICK PEASANT.

The thing is, every time I hear Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku lecturing on the science channel about wormholes I facepalm. I just don't understand why they're so comfortable believing in what may very well be a red herring.

>>1117186

because obviously OP's last name is Sagan and he knows all there is to know about the universe.

>>1117178
ALL of those are merely the result of accepting a broken physical model.

>>1117186
you wanna suck their cocks?

>>1117189

1/10

u try too little.

>>1117186
It could be Red Herring, but then again, so could the entire fucking universe. We could be in the Matrix for all we know. But, singularities are the best explanation that we have, and it fits the math, so that's what we're going with right now.

>>1117188
I emphatically do NOT believe that I am smarter than those magnificent minds, I merely believe that their acceptance of singularities is wrong.

>>1117202

And I capriciously yet arbitrarily base my decisions on the sound judgment of stuff I learn on the Internetz.

>>1117200
No, no their not. Everything works without them. We just assume that they're at the center of Black Holes.

>>1117206

And assuming is the first step towards introducing a sound hypothetical model/following the scientific method.

What kind of fucking /sci/entist are you, you expect us to make some fucking though experiment and save the day?

Think of it this way, singularities lead to wormholes, which in turn lead to the possibility of time travel. They're an enormous mess, and for what?

>>1117213

You got a better idea?

>>1117211
Yes. Or, rather, I expect you to accept the most logical argument regardless of what I post.

>>1117216
Absolutely none, precluding of course the non-existence of singularities.

>>1117217

I don't argue with retarded logic.

Why do singularities HAVE to exist? They're nothing but monsters that destroy all of our working universal models.

>>1117223

Why does God HAVE to exist? Humanity is spoiled as it is.

>>1117220
That is a good policy. So, the question then remains as to why you insist upon believing in the existence of the impossible.

>>1117206
No we don't. The best theory we have for calculating how black holes work and how shit around them reacts has a singularity as a limit. Nobody who understands the stuff honestly believes there's such a physical object out there, we just don't have anything better to replace it yet so it's either "use the best explanation but know it's wrong" or "sit around and don't think about it until a better theory just pops into someone's head".

OP, have you heard about the Ultraviolet catastrophe? it was another theory that worked quite well for a large range but predicted infinite values at one limit. We knew it was wrong. Later it got improved. One day the same thing will happen here.

so god is a singularity?

>>1117235
I understand that, but why are we using what we KNOW is a deeply flawed hypothesis to create monsters like wormholes? Wormholes NEED singularities.

I think we can safely say that infinites simply can not exist. What we think of as infinite is simply the result of our own misunderstanding of the universe.

>>1117245

Because scientists want to pretend they're doing shit and get paid but not tell the truth and not get paid.

Dumbfuck, learn to finance101.

An escape velocity of C does not require an infinitely small singularity, as you can reach such strength of gravity before that point. The fact that we have non-zero schwarzschild radii in the first place is already a hint of this.

Our real confirmation came when we discovered that black holes spin at a nearly relativistic, yet finite, rate as observed by their frame dragging. This would not be possible with a singularity.

At the center of a black hole must exist a mass that is very small and dense, yet still of distinct size.

>>1117257

the universe does not exist? or it's just really big! trollface.jpg

>>1117259
I don't believe that. I can't. I think they honestly really want something as incredible as a singularity to exist, because of what it could mean to future science if they do. Singularities are like religion. They exist on faith.

>>1117263
THIS! A thousand times this!

Singularities can NOT exist. And yet we still pretend that they do, ignoring the science. Why?

>>1117266
The obvious answer is that the universe is not infinite. Really, really, really, unimaginable big, yes. Infinite? No.

>>1117276

If you were a scientist and you wanted to get paid big bucks yet honestly have no idea how the fuck the universe worked but suddenly came up with a half-assed idea that seemed honest with good-to-heart intentions that would garner you the respect and love of both the media, the public interest, and corporate financing, would you not accept this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?

Basically, fake that you know what the fuck you're doing, or tell the truth and get fired. Hurr durr.

>>1117276
Who the hell is this "we" you keep using referring to?

>>1117291
That may very well be true, but I have too much faith in man to accept it. We should be reaching for the stars, not competing for praise. We should be confident enough in our own intelligence that we don't need throngs of unquestioning students bombarding us with complements and praise.

>>1117245
>>1117276

You fail to understand scientific progress. The flaws in our understanding are not being ignored.

The fact that black holes do not contain singularities is a profound discovery, yet for the most part it is largely irrelevant to the existing model.

We continue to use the standing model because it still provides the most accurate descriptions and predictions currently possible. It has not been discarded because there is nothing better to replace it with.

Yet.

The same thing will in all likelihood happen to its imminent revision/replacement when we discover new discrepancies in the future. Each time this happens our understanding grows and our models become ever more accurate.

>>1117318

"too much faith in man"

look what happened to Jesus. osh-

>>1117319
Don't bother, I've tried to explain this several times but he just doesn't get it.

>>1117319
As I have state, I do understand the necessity of using a flawed scientific model. What I don't understand is using what is known to be false as a premise for future science that can not exist without it.

So many brilliant scientists still propose theories involving wormholes as if they may one day be true. Without a singularity a wormhole can not exist. THAT'S my issue. Did we all fall so in love with science fiction that we blind ourselves to truth and refuse to accept that gravitons, chronotons, and wormholes simply do not exist!

>>1117349

They may exist, but exist under different conditions than ones we previously thought possible/necessary. You never know, you're counting your chickens before they hatch. Nothing is certain in the universe except for the imminent death of everything. If I drop this pencil there's a probability of 99.9_% that it will fall, but what is the probability of it not falling?

Nothing is 100% certain.

Heh OP:

"The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[46] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities."

In short: it's the best we've got right now, but maybe in the future once we understand quantum mechanics more, this will change.

>>1117364
Wormholes involve the 'piercing' of space-time. Without a singularity space-time can not be ruptured. It's not that they may be formed in another way, that's the ONLY way.

>>1117349

The fact that a black hole does not contain a singularity does not mean that singularities cannot exist. It means only that black holes do not contain singularities.

Being presumptuous is being unscientific.

>>1117374
As I have stated again and again, I concede that it is the best working model. However, I do not believe that future theories should be in anyway based on the one part of the the model that we KNOW is false. I.E. the rupturing of space-time by singularities.

>>1117376
See
>>1117150

anyone else think OP is trolling?

>>1117381
>the rupturing of space-time by singularities.

What the fuck are you smoking? That's not even the model that was disproved. All that was shown was that black holes don't contain them.

This
http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/
is what I'm talking about. The entire presentation leads the view to assume that it is anything more that science fiction, when we know that it isn't.

>>1117394
see
>>1117150

>>1117386

I'm already well-versed and that was a completely useless connection to attempt to make, thanks.

>>1117400
see
http://www.wikihow.com/Find-a-Hobby

There is no difference between wormhole physics and Star Trek "technobable".

>>1117400
You can point and ook at it all you want, it's still not the evidence you're looking for.

>>1117403
If that were true you would not have posted.

>>1117409
It's the evidence that singularities can't exist. There is no evidence to the contrary.

>>1117414
SPOILER: Relativity is wrong too.

>>1117422

This ought to be good. By all means, enlighten us.

>>1117051
Wouldn't theoretical imply that it's probably abstract and axiom based? Wouldn't that then be an answer to why the assumption is present in THEORETICAL physics?

>>1117424
It's just not fully understood. It's part of a larger undiscovered theory. Kepler's flawed system led to Newton's flawed system, which led to Einstein's flawed system. Einstein's special relativity is only held back by our ability to conceptualize warping space-time.

>>1117434
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

We KNOW that singularities don't exist.

>>1117455

And we KNOW that you're trolling. Hypothesized models are never completely accurate nor correct, nor should they be taken seriously. Nothing is KNOWN in the world, ever taken a philosophy class of epistemology?

>>1117447

You missed the part where it all goes to shit at subatomic scales. Every flash memory chip in the world works even though they're not supposed to.

You could claim anything isn't fully understood, because quite literally nothing is.

>>1117455
>We KNOW

You're not very good at this science thing, are you?

OP, what the hell are you arguing about? It's already been said that singularities will be gone with a model of quantum gravity. Are you that mad that people are fucking around with hypotheticals that you can't get over the fact that it doesn't matter? Let them imagine, work will still be done to move on to the next step.

Guess what /sci/ I have just successfully trolled you, absolutely and completely. I have totally decimated your puny minds. Bow to me, the one, ultimate, SUPER TROLL!

Singularities can not exist. You know that now, and you will never be able to enjoy The Science Channels bullshit programming ever again. How does that feel? Now you'll facepalm every fucking time some asshole talks about wormholes as if you're watching an episode of Star Trek:TNG. You can doubt it all you like. Now you know. And what is known can never be unknown.

>>1117497

1/10

i didn't lift a muscle. nor was i ever angry.

>>1117497
>>1117497
>>1117497
>>1117497
>>1117497
>>1117497
>>1117497
F-F-F-F-F-FUUUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>1117497
You don't speak for me.

>>1117517

shit, they discovered my dox. run to the caves. KASPAROV, WHERE ARE YOU?

>>1117517
>>1117513

i am liking this subtle variation of green in our names.

Seriously though, singularities? Do they exist or what cause I'm really fucking confuse. I thought singularity was synonymous with blackhole.

>>1117542
No they don't, but that doesn't matter.

>>1117542

By OP's logic we KNOW singularities cannot exist.

>>1117542

no, but it sticks because it's simpler to substitute it as valid.

>>1117552
OK, so they don't? Then what the fuck is a blackhole?

>>1117566
stop trolling. you're in /sci/, not /b/. act like it.

>>1117497
Are you kidding? That post is a terrible troll attempt, go home. No amount of meta trolling can get you out of being a fucking idiot.

>>1117566
The stuff around a where a singularity would be if it existed. Just assume that singularities exist, but without their magical powers. Their still really small and really fucking dense, they just don't rip apart the universe.

Never heard of a break, just severe distortion of the space.

>>1117598
Still here, just watching the freakshow. If you can't comprehend why the non-existence of singularities is important then I'm not going to waste my time trying to enlighten you. Why don't you all run off and discuss something less taxing...like say how the Stargate works in SG:1.

In what way would theoretical physics break if singularities condensed matter into things with some incredibly small non-zero volume with an incredibly high density?

>>1117610
Singularities are essentially the "break". Their points of infinite mass contained in an infinitely small space which effectively tears space.

>>1117636
None. But that's not a singularity. A singularity involves reducing all of that matter to zero volume, that's what rips space.

>>1117627

Nonsense. We get off by seeing pseudo-intellectuals like you shove your head up your ass and stroke your own e-peen.

>>1117552
You mad?

Seriously thow, you assholes are being trolled big time. Everyone fucking knows that singularities are just placeholders for something else, and no respected physicist actually believes in wormholes, but who the hell doesn't want to dream?

>>1117671

Hi samefag.

>>1117658
>Nonsense. We get off by seeing pseudo-intellectuals like you shove your head up your ass and stroke your own e-peen.

That would be you. Throughout this entire thread you've held you ground despite strong evidence contradictory to your opinion. Your only recourse has been simple name calling. I'd say you're the pseudo-intellectual. So far, you've only exposed your ignorance.

>>1117685

My opinion. What exactly has my opinion been? Besides of course, stating that singularities exist and then saying that they were merely an imposition of hypotheses granted by scientific studies shown, which have since been disputed by the uncertainty principle.

What has been contradictory of my judgment?

First of all, we know General Relativity is wrong because it's a classical field theory, not a quantum field theory.

Second of all, singularities usually indicate that your theory is breaking down and that additional physics is needed [a more down-to-earth example is the discontinuous jump across a fluid shockwave].

That is all.

>>1117658
>If you were a scientist and you wanted to get paid big bucks yet honestly have no idea how the fuck the universe worked but suddenly came up with a half-assed idea that seemed honest with good-to-heart intentions that would garner you the respect and love of both the media, the public interest, and corporate financing, would you not accept this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?

I think this illustrates your acceptance of the non-existence of singularities, yet you continue to post derisive comments that do little but lash out. In short you've got a bruised ego. Grow up...or go to /b/. I hear they LOVE you're kind out there.

>>1117692
>Besides of course, stating that singularities exist and then saying that they were merely an imposition of hypotheses granted by scientific studies shown, which have since been disputed by the uncertainty principle.

Do you enjoy using big words? I honestly don't think you know the first thing about Heisenberg.

>>1117702

And yet you fail to troll us despite holding a large sign saying "TROLL BUFFET" everywhere you post. Ego much?

Presupposed rule #1 of trolling: never disclose the fact that you're trolling.
Presupposed rule #2 of trolling: act like you have bad grammar. In this case, it's not an act.

>>1117708

No, but I enjoy pulling up facts from my ass. Reminds me of you. Oh look, there's an Internet article on a physics forum regarding so-and-so subject, let me copy-and-pasta then subtlety reword every other word to induce mass vomiting.

>>1117712

>>1117726
>>1117712
>>1117692
>>1117658
JESUS BUTTFUCKING CHRIST, MAN! Go troll somewhere else.

>>1117735

/g/ is boring this time of night. /sci/ will do for now.

>>1117726
There's the name calling again. Look, dispute my opinion. Please, prove me wrong. I really want you to. It would help me sleep at night, but don't just rage type.

>>1117745

I'm as calm as I can possibly be. And I cannot prove you wrong, much like how you cannot prove me wrong. Winning arguments on the Internet is like...whatever the fact that image macro was. Whatever you do, please accept the fact that you'll still be as retarded as your fellow /sci/entific peers.

Now please, go to bed. It's past your bedtime.

>>1117739
I LOVE YOU. This is fucking awesome. Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls. It's like some kind of fucking infinite loop of faggotry.

>>1117754

Can't tell if serious or not. But I love you too.

>>1117749
I'm literally facepalming right now. I have proven you wrong time and again, then shown you why you were wrong. Only to be countered by your offensive responses.

>>1117765

I am really sorry for being such a meanie to you. Is there anything I can do to make the situation better, or have I offended you too much? You have not proven me wrong, and you never will. You cannot prove anything in this universe of ours. Prove it.

>>1117786
Well...I mean, I would like a blowjob. What do you say we bury the hatchet, and you help me bury my cock?

>>1117786

not op, but this is the most butthurt thing i've ever read on 4chan.

>i'm not wrong and you can't prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

ITT Faggots

>I'm still going to use the OP's hypothesis to troll the fuck out of my friends tomorrow.

>>1117796

It's a good start. You're beginning to learn the basic gist of it. Sarcastic humor is a good sign of becoming a well-recognized troll.

>>1117796
This man does not speak for me.

>>1117800

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a philosophy major. The burden of proof is introduced by the one who makes a statement first, this being the OP, the burden of proof lies on him (or her, if this is a smart femanon), not on me.

But...the other part of a philosophic burden of proof, which you shouldn't have linked as this is /sci/ not mental masturbation, is that nothing will and can be known.

While we're getting warmed up, can you distinguish the difference between a fact and an opinion? Because everything in this thread is basically opinionated.

Answer: No legitimate physicist believes that there exist physical singularities in the universe. They merely represent places where our current theories are invalid. To take the black hole example, most people thing a coherent theory of quantum gravity will solve the "singularity problem".

>>1117828
See
>>1117150

Singularities simply can not exist in the same way that we can't divide by zero. It's just impossible.

>>1117828

>typing words in an image board

>>1117831
God, I really fucking hope so. But the eagerness with which noted scientists speak of wormholes still troubles me.

>>1117836

You say it's not possible, yet you fail to illustrate further. Besides, you're comparing algebraic quantities, or non-quantities, should I say, to something that cannot be explained quantitatively.

0 has a value, it has a function, it is infinite, yet the whole point of your thread so it seemed was to tell everybody that "HEY, INFINITY DOES NOT EXIST!" By comparing 0 with singularities, you just contradicted yourself.

>>1117028
because maths is hard, really really hard, the scientists eventually quit and say SINGULARITY! or they keep finding singularities and don't think the problem through.

>>1117844

Thing is, wormhole spacetimes are not, in general, singular. So the non-physicality of singularities doesn't rule out certain wormhole geometries! The type of "worm hole" produced by any time of black hole is not a very good one, since it is impossible to travel through it (plus it is usually presented as, at best, an extension of the coordinate system which just always seemed cheesy to me).

OP, I've come and gone from this thread several times and already said enough for me.

You seem to be arguing that exploring the consequences of our best current theory is a bad thing and that rather than trying to understand what this problem means, or measure how the real world differs from its predictions, or find ways to test its predictions in an effort to find a better theory, we should simply... what? Give up because we know it's wrong and therefore not worthy of even the merest time?

>>1117865
But by their very nature wormholes rely on a 'breach' in space-time which can only be caused by a singularity. 'Connecting' two different points of space-time implies this.

>>1117880
>>1117848
Samefag deteced.

Going to sleep now, I can't take this anymore. I concede willfully and happily ever after.

OP is brilliance at its best. Oh, the genius of the minds of tomorrow.

>>1117881

Nope, they don't. Only in the public mind is this true, but there are certain spacetime geometries which exhibit all the features of what we think of as wormholes without any singularity. It should be noted that they do, however, still violate (usually all three) energy conditions (i.e negative energy densities are involved).

>>1117881
>>1117848
>>1117836
hate to but in on your collective faggotry, but this argument is nothing new.

http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/mathis63.pdf

>>1117884

wrong, but nice try. I swear on my dick, and God's, that I did not post that. But I am rather proud of whoever did. Tripfags don't samefag, unless you're In Elite from /g/.

>>1117892
Fascinating! I don't suppose you could point me to more information. I'd love to learn more. Clearly, I have misconceptions on the formation of wormholes.

>>1117893
Well fuck me. That's bloody beautiful. Thanks.

>>1117903
I will concede that I don't know anything about the formation of these geometries, as such knowledge would be extremely difficult and complicated. Usually we just study the end-state geometry, as doing the dynamic evolution of spacetime is something that we're just now getting good at (with black holes and neutron stars), but still in very simple cases (and the numerical evaluation still often takes months!).

I also don't have my general relativity books lying around right now, but there's an example I remember from Hartle's Gravity which describes a relatively simple wormhole spacetime.

>>1117915
If you could point me in the right direction, I think, that would be enough. What books should I look for?

>>1117893
What the hell am I reading
this guy is just making up definitions as he goes and then refuting them
>reads more of this guys articles
holy shit, this guy doesn't understand anything. I'm not even going to give an example... the stuff he writes articles about only barely resembles actual physics.

>>1117937
Oh wait, forgot the pic to show my amazement

>>1117921
Like I said, I think Hartle has something...

After digging for a bit I found this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9211/9211012v1.pdf
The metric right at the beginning of the second section (Equation 2.1) is what I'm talking about.

>>1117955
Thank you, kind sir. I shall be bettering myself tomorrow.

because they are fucking awesome... what?

>Einstein's special relativity precludes the existence of singularities.

No.

the existance of singularities in our models just indicate (and remind us) that our models are flawed.

Hey smartypants, if you are so clever, then explain me why schizophrenia is mental disease and thus spiritual in nature, and not a brain disease, which is caused by abnormal brain chemistry, which is caused by something altering the brain chemistry. Well the things that alters the brain chemistry are several parasitic pathogens, c. pneumoniae (depletes neural cell energy by stealing ATP directly from mitochondria), b. burgdorferi, t. gondii (affects the extracellular levels of dopamine), and several others.
So tell me, why does psychiatry exist if all the "mental" disease are indeed somatic in nature and thus should be treated other medicinal branches?

>>1117955
Holy fuck. I can't believe I can keep up with the physics and maths in this paper, only after one course in black hole physics.

>>1118107
What does this have to do with anything? Also, you're wrong.

>>1118107
I'd be more than happy to answer that question.

But first, tell me about your relationship with you mother...

protip OP if you're trolling use a tripcode

I'm seriously going to need to see the evidence that points to the possibility that singularities do not exist.

otherwise this discussion is moot.

>>1117893
This is somewhat interesting, BUT:

what the writer doesn't quite mention is that QED, despite it's flaws and the "unnatural" renormalization scheme, is still the most fucking exact theory ever created by man. Using QED you can calculate shit that corresponds to the experimental value up to the fucking 12th decimal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor#Measured_g-factor_values

Hey op, thanks for enlightening me, this has been a most inspiring thread. The density of trolls in this thread would have caused a troll sinularity, if they were real, lol!

>>1118158
If you read other stuff by him it becomes much clearer. He picks a term and misunderstands it over and over again.

In one article he claims that kinetic energy should only be present during acceleration because that's how it's made, then claims that a particle at constant velocity shouldn't have kinetic energy - or maybe that physics predicts the opposite, I can't remember which side he was arguing about - then calls this a "big hole in physics".

>>1118257
He seems like a douche that takes physical concepts, tries to take them word by word without acknowledging it's conceptual and methodological nature.

without singularities, we would live in a deterministic universe.

>>1118287
http://milesmathis.com/gold3.html
>THE SIMPLE PROOF OF GOLDBACH'S CONJECTURE
>Why is the Sky Blue? Current theory is shown to be upside-down. 13pp.
>The Extinction of π. Here I show that the true value of π, defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter, is 4. 15pp.
>Why the Atomic World is 100 Times Larger than We Thought. Important corrections to Rutherford's scattering equations yield new size estimates. 8pp.
>The Moon Gives up a Secret. Numbers from the Moon are analyzed to show that "gravity" is a compound field. 4pp.
>The Proof of the Derivative for Powers is False. I show yet another reason the proof by going to zero is wrong. 10pp.

>1584pp. total. 5/27/2010.

>PUBLISHING UPDATE, 5/28/2010. My publisher has apparently never seen a science book before, so the the galley corrections took forever. However, the first copies have been printed and the book should be available within 10 days. As soon as the book is available at Authorhouse, I will post a link to the order page. Sorry for the delay.

>http://mileswmathis.com/bio.html

Basically, he's taught himself physics, had nobody to point out the errors, and things just got worse from there.

HOLY SHIT I'M RAGING

>>1118342


Haha! This guy is hilarious. I was reading and suddenly came to the sentence "We are given that some fraction of all integers is prime." then cracked up.

>>1118342
This guy is one of the dumbest bullshitters I've ever seen. He makes several fundamental mistakes that lead to totally erroneous conclusions, however his conclusion inevitably is that he is absolutely right and that the establishment is incorrect. But really, you can experimentally try any of his models and find that they are completely wrong, usually because he failed to account for a rudimentary element early in the process.

It's just a faggot snowball effect.

Have we even defined what a singularity actually is?

>>1118513
I don't know, there are some pretty dumb bullshitters out there.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dingbat.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoJoke.html
And of course, then there's /sci/'s favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o

>>1118533
Well you got me there, no doubt. This guy can spell and doesn't (yet) confuse mass and volume; he just can't do math beyond algebra and number theory and even that apparently is beyond his ability.

He described tensor calculus as an academic distraction and claims that gravity, in all its complexity, can be explained entirely algebraically. His proofs for these are expectedly light on details and actual math but high on haughty rhetoric. Actually reading the "proofs" which he calls "rigorous" is like watching a confused philosophy student attempt math (no offense to my philosopher friends, if any).

>>1118533
This guy has gotten a 350 book published of his "best of" articles on science. It's utterly wrong. I mean, that's not really bad - it would be worse if he were banned from doing so - but he clearly really believes he's a genius. And artist and poet and wordsmith and brilliant thinker (http://mileswmathis.com/).).

If you read his bio you'll realise that he's clearly been deluded for most of his life.

>>1118575
Wow: "The overly socialized and pressurized milieu we live in, where intelligent and earnest people are dismissed for the flimsiest of reasons, or for no reason, and where most people are cowed into permanent silence, has more to answer for to history, or to the gods of physics and math, than I ever will for my boldness."

And severe delusions of grandeur. I'm fairly certain sophomore undergraduate math majors could find the errors in his work which he claims are errors in others'. His supercilious attitude toward others is so profoundly insane.. that I think he might be clinically narcissistic. In any case, if and when this travesty of a book is published, I will look for critiques of it and will provide some if I do not see any good ones.

>>1118533
Oh man, you have made my day. I'm going to be reading these for hours...

>>1118593

You're right, I just looked at his bio, etc.. Might be better to leave people like this alone, actually. The more I read the more I feel like I would be publicly beating a child.

>>1118609
Shit, this lunatic also thinks Bin Laden is a construct of the CIA. The guy is all sorts of batshit insane and math is the least of his worries. Fuck this.

>>1117065
Do teenagers really still believe philosophy is some kind of child's science? Wow.