> my understanding was that this was disproven
To the extent anything in this discussion can be absolute, it's the wrongness of your statement. Nothing about singularities has been empirically proven (or disproven).
To the extent anything in this discussion can be absolute, it's the wrongness of your statement. Nothing about singularities has been empirically proven (or disproven).
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."Therefore, I believe the rules against name-calling are not literal. As you noticed, attempting to restrict discussion more strictly would make it bland, but on the other hand when it comes to literal name-calling in a civilized discussion it’s way past all limits.
Tangentially, I was surprised to learn recently that merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary and perceived as somewhat confrontational. Haven’t confirmed it from multiple sources (not sure how to search for), but in hindsight it makes sense: the mood changes, and the argument can quickly devolve thereafter. I suspect it might be something from psychotherapy practice.
Not necessarily unnecessary, but necessarily personal.
If I changed the “your” in the top comment to “this,” I think it would better communicate both my issue and reasonable irritation with the comment I was responding to. At the same time there is another commenter in this thread who refused to back down, and at that point a “you’re bordering on trolling” seems appropriate. It is confrontational, but not unnecessarily so.
One divided by zero is a singularity. Singularity, mathematically speaking, means your math breaks. Calculus gets around this problem with limits. But there is absolutely nothing about physics that prohibits singularities, even gravitational singularities, in a zero G space because by definition a gravitational singularity per se has an undefined G.
Moreover, it hard to imagine that Higgs bosons will act at same place and time with same effectiveness.
So, I cannot believe in a singularity unless it will be physically demonstrated.
Also, no one serious claims that singularities exist when taking quantum mechanics into account. It's completely unknown territory.
As non-native speaker, it's hard for me to argue with native speakers (especially when I sick, tired, in army, and at war), and I refuse to use AI to translate, because I suspect that such messages will be automatically rejected by future archivists.
I think you're talking about the fact that the gravitational force inside of a symmetric shell of matter is zero. But the potential is not, as can be (and has been, I believe) demonstrated quite easily by just putting a clock in a hole and measuring the time dilation relative to the surface.
Sorry you are at war. Good luck.
Moreover, the tunnel itself will create much stronger impact on results on asteroid, than on Moon. If we will dig ∅1 cm tunnel to the center of the Moon, it missing volume will be pretty insignificant and easy to compensate, e.g. with lead plug.
Moreover, big and rigid Moon will be much better antenna for lot of experiments, than small and soft asteroid.
The singularity in a black hole has no conception of baryons, hadrons or fermions. Those are quantum particles. The singularity is in general relativity.
Also, 0G doesn’t mean zero gravity. An object in freefall is still subject to gravity despite experiencing 0G.
(Side note: fermions can occupy the same place at the same time. They cannot occupy the same state. This seeming mathematic fuckery goes on to describe many real-world weirdos like neutron stars.)
It's just that the _light_ that this observer emits takes infinitely long to reach observers outside of the singularity.