Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by wil, Jan 26, 2020.
Dispute what, whom? Science never said that.
Oh? What does science say? What was the Big Bang? It's like an ant thinking it understands a cellphone. Silly little ant, lol
Science does not say anything about what happened before inflation. That is (at the moment) our 'event horizon'.
Ok. That's a good image.
But sorry: is there a singularity, or is there not? Does the event horizon of a black hole describe the event horizon of a singularity, or of something else? A very heavy object, perhaps?
So if the event horizon is not the event horizon of a singularity, what is it the event horizon of? ??
We just do not know. Member Polymath is good at these things, others too. See that here and here.
The BB event describes the universe coming into existence from a singulzrity, A black hole is described as a singularity from which not even light can escape. Are you denying this is the description used?
Events cease at the event horizon. Beyond the EH everything goes to infinity/zero. Black holes were first predicted by theory and later they were discovered in reality.
So it sounds as if you are saying that a singulatity is not actually really a singularity, but a point at which the math fails? Is this the point you are making?
Just to be really picky, it is the event horizon which light cannot cross.
The singularity itself (of a black hole) is unreachable rather than inescapable.
It is not math failing - math does not fail in the case of the tangent function in trigonometry either - rather our imagination or rather the descriptive theories we imagine, that are lacking. But the discontinuity of an aggregate shift such as water crystallizing into ice is also such a case of one theory ceasing to apply, without being accorded metaphysical significance that I know of.
Just my contribution to the latest banter in here, please carry on
I understand this. It's like dividing forever by (for instance) a-half: the number gets infinitely smaller, yet never actually reaches infinity?
But it always comes back to the first cause. If the BB singularity is perhaps not a true infinity, but is instead an 'event' something like the nexus of an hourglass, from which the sand seems to appear as if from nowhere -- there is always the horus that precedes it ... and the nexus that precedes ... until ...
However, effectively the BB theory does describe the universe appearing from a singularity?
Maybe you and I have different conceptions of what the word singularity means.
I don't think it carries connotations of a source or conduit.
No I do not think it does. But that seems to be the conclusion of thinking of the BB as 'a sort of singularity' that is admitting 'stuff from somewhere else'?
It's back to the description of the BB that everything came to be in a single event that then developed and became the form of the universe -- as roughly the same as Biblical Creation?
I'm not trying to prove anything. The fact is there?
'Singularity' means 'we do not know at the moment' and nothing more. That is the same thing as 'event horizon'. When we know better, it won't remain a singularity or an 'event horizon'.
To me that's the cop-out of an ant assuming it will one day understand a cell phone or a flea assuming it will get to understand the dog it is on. We don't know yet, but we will.
It's the absolutely confident assumption that there is no higher intelligence than man. It might just as well go the other way?
At the event horizon 'nature' ceases to have any meaning. Time becomes zero/infinite, matter becomes infinitely dense and space is compressed up its own asshole. To all practical purpose nature cannot go there. It is a state beyond 'nature.' Yet nature is all there is?
We dont know yet, but we will?
Again, the event horizon of a black hole is not the same as the black hole singularity. Time does not stop upon crossing the event horizon. The event horizon is a one-way trapdoor, nature continues just fine on the other side, nothing super weird going on at that point with respect to spacetime, it's just that the speed of light is no longer sufficient to make the journey back.
I know and we have been thru it. But the black hole exists by fact of the singularity. The light is drawn inexorably towards the singularity. It cannot escape the power of the singularity, once it has crossed the event horizon it's on a one way trip towards the singularity.
The definition of a black hole is that it is a singularity. Or let's say that a black hole exists because of the singulatity that exists at the end/heart/centre of a black hole. Is there a problem with this?
A definition of a singularity is a state where matter becomes infinitely dense and therefore occupies no area? Can we decide what a singularity is, before deciding what it is not?
Whatever crosses the event horizon cannot escape the singularity? Am I saying it enough ways?
Yes, did not want to annoy you.
Why should I assume anything else (there has to be a reason that we will never understand the mystery of the universe)? For what reason should I assume an intelligence higher than that of man? We will keep on trying till we understand it.
Separate names with a comma.