Summations Only

Hi JustATruthSeeker,The only way I can make any sense at all out of your post is if I assume you're operating under the misapprehension that a black hole and a singularity are synonymous. This would be incorrect. Black holes and singularities are two different things. It is singularities that scientists don't believe are real, believing they're just an artifact of general relativity applied inappropriately at tiny scales.Scientists do believe that black holes exist, and we have lots of evidence for them, including even some fairly direct observational evidence.So once again, just to be sure you have it straight about what scientists believe are real: Black holes, yes. Singularities, no.So getting back to your original erroneous point, scientists don't believe there was a singularity at T=0 just before the Big Bang. They believe that the cosmological models we have don't apply that early in the universe. There are a number of theories that have been proposed, but none have yet garnered enough evidence to become widely accepted.And about your subsequent erroneous point, scientists don't believe there's a singularity at the center of black holes. They believe that correctly modelling what occurs at the center of black holes requires the application of both general relativity and quantum theory simultaneously, something we're not currently capable of doing.Have you considered a name change, possibly to IncapableOfSeeingTruth?--Percy

The above is, at least, not gibberish. Congratulatons, that's a step up from most of the stuff you proclaim. But you are still wrong.Black hole - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[63] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum 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, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities

---

The link you provide does not use the word 'signularity'. What relevance do you think the article at the link has to whatever point you are trying to make, and how does it bring into question anything Percy posted? You don't seem to have any particulalry strong ability to comprehend what you read. Percy did not say that black holes did not exist, he simply said that there was no real singularity involved involved.

I could care less how well I am doing, as if the opinions of half the people on here matter. You claim there is a difference, then fine, point me to the article that explains this difference. Until then you are just stating your opinion. I notice that none of you ever include references when you say this is what they say, why is that?Perhaps because you can't find any????It would be nice if your quantum theory didn't rely on them, then conflict with itself over them. Singularities and Black Holes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

quote:

---

As purely gravitational entities, black holes are at the heart of many attempts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity. Although they are regions of spacetime, black holes are also thermodynamical entities, with a temperature and an entropy; however, it is far from clear what statistical physics underlies these thermodynamical facts. The evolution of black holes is also apparently in conflict with standard quantum evolution, for such evolution rules out the sort of increase in entropy that seems to be required when black holes are present.

---

So you rely on them for trying to formulate quantum gravity, but your quantum theory rules them out. DOUBLETALK!!!!!!And heres your Big Bang for you.Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities.[2] Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities).[3] According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.

---

Shibboleth Authentication RequestLike I said, get your story straight first.

So....you still can't tell the difference between black holes and singularities.Even your own links show that they aren't the same.Since all the links provided by both others and yourself show that black holes and singularities are NOT the same, there seems little reason to post any more links.But let's look at your first link: Singularities and Black Holes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Even the title tells you that they aren't the same: "Singularities and Black Holes".
But maybe you didn't read that far.Let's look at your quote:

quote:

---

As purely gravitational entities, black holes are at the heart of many attempts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity. Although they are regions of spacetime, black holes are also thermodynamical entities, with a temperature and an entropy; however, it is far from clear what statistical physics underlies these thermodynamical facts. The evolution of black holes is also apparently in conflict with standard quantum evolution, for such evolution rules out the sort of increase in entropy that seems to be required when black holes are present.

---

Oh look! It says black holes are NOT the same as singularities !Well, it is good of you to argue our point, but you are meant to be supporting your own claims.So - you still can't tell the difference despite ALL the links you have provided describing that difference.
/golfclapEdited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You're going to have to raise your game if you want JustATurdSeeker to reply to your posts.
At best I would describe your comment as 'sarky'; you need to actually post something insulting to get a reply.

That much is evident.

Of course, this is demonstrably false. I cite references of my own, but quite often I find information in the references you provide that contradicts your claims.Besides that, I think it's reasonable for people to post things like 'F=ma' or to cite Newton's law of gravitation without providing a reference until they are called on it. The problem I see in arguing with you is that all you seem to know about physics comes from the fringe sites that provide mere caricatures of science for the purpose of a strawman attack.I am sure that you can find any number of physics sites that provide some sloppy talk about black holes, the big bang, and singularities. But here is a hint on handling those things. When someone talks about a 'classical' (e.g. classical Big Bang) approach in physics, they are almost always describing something other than the current understanding.

And beware any who claim "The only physics I ever took was Ex-Lax."

You're priceless.

Some of the stuff you're linking to is pretty clear, and I'm sure all of us reading your posts are pretty puzzled why you keep misinterpreting it. But some of the other stuff you're pointing to does seem fairly easy to misinterpret. It's not uncommon to see references to a singularity as if physicists believed it were something real when all the word is really doing is acting as a stand-in for the term "something we haven't figured out yet." That's what your Gravitational Singularity link at Wikipedia meant when it said in the part you quoted: You can tell that they didn't intend for you to interpret their reference to the singularity as something real by this sentence that follows, which you chose not to quote: In case this isn't clear, Wikipedia is saying that quantum mechanics doesn't allow particles to shrink to zero size, because the lower limit on their size is their wavelength, which is non-zero. Something that has a non-zero size cannot have an infinite density.The word "singularity" is being used in different ways by different writers because of different contexts. In some cases they're writing about the hypothetical singularity of infinite density that is a theoretical construct and that we don't believe exists. In other cases they're using the term "singularity" to refer to the unsolved theoretical problem of what happens when one approaches T=0 at the beginning of the universe, or approaches the center of a black hole.Summarizing:

1. Black holes and singularities are two different things. In your reading perhaps you came across references to "naked singularities," those which exist independent of a black hole (though keep in mind again that singularities of infinite density are at this point theoretical abstractions and not thought to be real). Obviously if a singularity can exist independently of a black hole it can't be the same thing as a black hole.
   ​
2. Given what we know about quantum mechanics, neither singularities nor naked singularities exist in the sense of objects of infinite density, though since science is tentative that cannot be a final answer since there are no final answers in science. But do they exist as theoretical abstractions? Most certainly, which is why you keep seeing references that you think are referring to something scientists think is a real object.
   ​
3. Scientists don't believe that objects of infinite density actually exist in our universe. They believe that general relativity and quantum mechanics must be used together to solve the problem of what happened around T=0 and at the center of black holes, but they don't know how to combine these two different theories yet. I've mentioned a couple times that a number of theories has been proposed (quantum gravity that you once mentioned is one of them), but none has yet won out over the others.
   ​
4. And let's not forget this one: Plasmas have a roughly neutral net charge.

--Percy

You should actually call the matter beneath our feet "Strange Matter", being it makes up less then .13% of the universe. Then you wonder why cosmologists are always surprised when observations don't match what was expected after you ignore the other 99.86%. Then you require 96% of fairy dust you call Dark Matter and Dark Energy with a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy to explain the 99.86% you ignore. Don't know what causes it, must be Dark Matter or a Black Hole. Can't be a plasma phenomenon, even though plasma makes up 99.86% of the universe and is exactly what you observe being ejected in a z-pinch. Exactly matching laboratory experiments for over 100 years. Unless you got a mini black hole in a lab somewhere to validate your theory??? Your theory collapses at this imaginary event horizon, the math useless, showing that such is not a supported hypothesis. That even the math is against it. And as every single laboratory experiment has proven time after time, plasma behaves according to the electromagnetic formulas, and not gravitational. This is why you require 96% of dark matter to explain galactic rotation curves, and a super-massive black hole, maybe even a binary black hole or two to explain them, never-mind that's it's not "real", just because we need them to explain what we see because we ignore all 99.86% of the universe. But don't worry, your tax dollars are being well spent on the next imaginary fairy dust project.Hows that 12 billion dollar project going for the search for gravitational waves? Oh, that's right, none were detected so you need a few billion more to continue to look.
No Elephants In My Carpet - More LIES from LIGO
A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!! Dark Matter/Energy?
LIGO Successfully finds nothing
Dark Inertia - Part One
Dark Inertia - Part Two Hows your solar theory doing now that its thermal properties are 1% of that required to support your hypothesis? Oh that's right, you don't have an explanation now, just as voyager falsified your theory of the outer solar system. You have no theory at all to explain the sun, the nearest star, or our solar system, yet insist everything else is correct. That's a surefire belief if I ever saw one. You could never successfully explain galactic rotation curves before, now you don't even have a solar system or one for stars either.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...013/05/08/radio-elliptical-3
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/05/13/black-hunger-3/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...anations-that-dont-explain-2Why aren't those pesky stars taking thousands of years to move across the HR diagram as your theory requires?Please, there is no evidence whatsoever that the overall energy of the universe is neutral, when 99.86% of the universe is still in plasma form 14 billion years after your Big Bang. And as all atomic research has shown it is when atomic bonds begin to form that matter becomes electrically neutral. So far only .13% of the universe has done so, and only partially, as the very lightning in the storms are plasma. The evidence suggest the universe is unbalanced, hence its expansion, not stability. E=mc^2.

Both designtheorist and justatruthseeker have shown a remarkable talent for incomprehension and falsehood; it is though they were competing to see who could be the biggest loon.And to whom shall we award this coveted palm? On the one hand, designtheorist did seem to be making his own mistakes. Should he score marks for originality? Perhaps, but arguably not: is it not more the mark of the crank to do as justatruthseeker does, and parrot nonsense about subjects he doesn't understand?Designtheorist must surely lose marks for staying more or less on topic, but then he has the disadvantage that as it was his own choice of topic he could hardly help doing so. Even so, one has to admire justatruthseeker for resolutely posting without the least reference to the subject of the thread.Then there is the question of quantity. Now, designtheorist made twice as many posts; however, justatruthseeker was wrong about a much wider variety of things. When one looks at his posts, one is overcome by the same emotions that Heracles must have felt on first gazing at the stables of Augeus.It is the distinctive mark of the crank that he should combine his ignorance with arrogance. Now, designtheorist occasionally lapsed into humility, as though realizing that people with Nobel Prizes in physics might conceivably know quite a bit about physics. By contrast, it seems no tremor of self-doubt has ever rippled the tranquil, dark, and stagnant surface of justatruthseeker's stupidity.In the matter of presentation, both candidates disappointed, neither of them producing the gaudy typographic mess which is the mark of the true crank. And designtheorist, it grieves me to say, even wrote good English. This latter charge could not be laid at the feet of justatruthseeker, whose invention of phrases such as "0 point volume singularity" gave such a delightful air of stupidity to everything he wrote.Finally, we come to the matter of paranoia. Now, designtheorist, to be sure, imputed ulterior motives (atheism, naturally) to all the physicists who disagree with him; but for true screaming twitching paranoia, we must turn to justatruthseeker. Not only was he quick to adduce a vast conspiracy as an explanation of why physicists disagree with him about physics, and astronomers about astronomy; but also his conspiracy theory is perhaps the most profoundly stupid I have ever seen, though I have walked among creationists, spoken with 9/11 Truthers, and met people who vote Republican.We must therefore award the prize to justatruthseeker as being in almost every category the greater fool; the actual formal presentation will be postponed until the judges have ascertained whether he was using drugs to assist his performance.

I somehow didn't receive the notice of summation mode, and my admin permissions means I was allowed to respond to justatruthseeker. I've modified this over to a summation.Here's a list of things JustATruthSeeker was wrong about:

1. Normal matter is around 4.9% of the universe, not .13%.
   ​
2. Dark matter and dark energy actually comprise approximately 95.1% of the universe, not 99.86%. JustATruthSeeker was confusing the universe with our solar system. His 99.86% figure is the percentage of our solar system's total mass that resides in the sun.
   ​
3. Plasma cannot be responsible for keeping galaxies from flying apart because a plasma is normal matter, and since normal matter makes up only 4.9% of the universe there isn't enough of it. Like everything else in the universe, plasmas obey all physical laws, including those relating to gravity.
   ​
4. Black holes and singularities are not the same thing.
   ​
5. It is singularities that scientists believe aren't real, not black holes.
   ​
6. Plasma's are roughly electrically neutral. I can only guess that JustATruthSeeker is operating under the misimpression that a plasma is a cloud of particles all with the same charge, such as a cloud of electrons or a could of protons. It isn't. A plasma is a cloud of both positively and negatively charged particles, approximately equal number.

--PercyEdited by Percy, : Transform into a summation.