Black Holes

[Kleophon]

I have been thinking today about the notion of black holes. I read a website posted by Epsilon=One about how black holes did not exist (by the very good physicist Mitra). As I thought more about it, I realized that the idea of a black hole was a contradiction to the logic of math (at least, if I am right in my limited mathematical knowledge and physics).

Go to this website: http://www.houseof3d.com/pete/applets/graph/ and select under "more equations" y=-1/(x^2 + z^2) and set it to "high density". Also select "no 3D glasses".

Then open a new browser window and go to this website: http://www.astro.utu.fi/kurssit/ttpk1/ttpkI/14Astrofysiikka.html. Scroll down about 3/4 of the way down and click on the picture that says: Black Hole Spacetime Curvature 2-D.

As you will notice, these two models are fairly equivalent. So, if you imagine placing the black hole model on top of the 3-D model, you will basically have the same shape. If we want to determine the limit as (x,z) approaches (0,0) of the equation y=-1/(x^2 + z^2), we find that the limit does not exist and we go no further in trying to explain the equation because the non-existant limit is of no use to us. So, could the "point of singularity", which is equivalent to the point (0,0) on the graph, be analyzed as a limit? If so, then it would yield a "limit does not exist" and we'd move on to the next question. So, why then would a black hole's singularity exist if the limit doesn't exist?

Perhaps I am overlooking something by my extremely limited knowledge of both math and physics, but for some reason this comparison seems to truthfully imply that black holes don't make sense. Any advice would be most appreciated. I am sure that there is some higher mathematics that explain this, but would anybody have any answers?

[Epsilon=One]

As I thought more about it, I realized that the idea of a black hole was a contradiction to the logic of math (at least, if I am right in my limited mathematical knowledge and physics).You are correct. Your knowledge can even be extended to philosophical logic.

A subtle argument, that is far too deep for this space (and my time) is that there is nothing that exists that is less than One as conceptualized by the Conceptual Unit (http://www.2-CQ.us/PT/CU).

I will make some statements that require a detailed proof that I'm not going to argue here; and, I know of nowhere else that the statements are as explicitedly referenced or cited.

Existence requires the Inverse Square Law (http://www.2-CQ.us/PT/ISL) (ISL). An axiom of Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156) (that is provable with observation, simple geometry, and algebra).

One squared ad infinitum is One. Thus one is a limit, a singularity. (Anything less than One squared does not increase; anything greater than One squared increases.)

Thus if ISL is a requirement of existence; existence requires, as a minimum, One plus "something."

Black holes do not allow plus "something"; therefore, black holes do not exist.

Perhaps I am overlooking something by my extremely limited knowledge of both math and physics, but for some reason this comparison seems to truthfully imply that black holes don't make sense.Your links and arguments, for a layperson, are unbelievably perceptive. You have also demonstrated the power of simplicity over that of general relativity's deceptive complexity.

I am sure that there is some higher mathematics that explain this...The "higher" that you go, the less that I would trust the conclusion.

There is a mystique to One, and a certainty to geometry and algebra, that very few mathematicians ever appreciate.

[Kleophon]

Is my argument, by chance, a more simplified version of Mr. Mitra's arguments? I am wondering if what I am saying is worth pursuing in terms of mathematical logic and existing laws of physics? Thanks for your explanation of One, I clearly see that it is a sort of singularity. It's interesting that you say One is a singularity, but that mine is about Zero. I had a teacher a while ago say that there really are only three numbers worth considering: 0, 1, and infinity. Everything else simply lies in between and is meaningless to us.

[Epsilon=One]

Is my argument, by chance, a more simplified version of Mr. Mitra's arguments?Have to get back to you on this. Don't let me forget. My guess is that Mitra found an error in Hawking's interpretation of general relativity.

I am wondering if what I am saying is worth pursuing in terms of mathematical logic and existing laws of physics?Definitely!!

It's interesting that you say One is a singularity, but that mine is about Zero.Zero and One are closely related. They are both singularities. And, there is only one singularity.

I had a teacher a while ago say that there really are only three numbers worth considering: 0, 1, and infinity. Everything else simply lies in between and is meaningless to us.Your teacher possesed much wisdom. And, Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity), is both the infinite and the infinitesimal.

[Kleophon]

Have to get back to you on this. Don't let me forget. My guess is that Mitra found an error in Hawking's interpretation of general relativity.


Thanks, I'm eager to hear what you make of this.

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks, I'm eager to hear what you make of this.Mitra's paper must wait a bit. I'll try to get Mario Rabinowitz (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mario+rabinowitz&btnG=Google+Search) to analyze it; he's much better than I am . . . and not near as biased. I'm terribly pressed for time for several weeks.

I should have added that Hawking discovered at least one error that he made when predicting black holes; but, no one paid much attention for several years after he first mentioned it at Caltech. It was an amazing admission because most all of Hawkings reputation was built on his "discovery" of black holes.

[Mr. B]

Ep=1, I understand your reasoning for the non existence of black holes, but surely the fact that we don't have the maths done for exactly what is going on in a singularity doesn't necessarily mean that they therefore don't exist. The weight of evidence in favour of their existence is huge. Starting with active galaxies, how could central stars and dust at a distance of two light weeks from the galactic core rotate at te speed they do without a gravitational pull equivalent to several billion sun masses contained in a relatively small area? Without a black hole, where could the mass be stored? A star that size would burn itself out in a very short amount of time - the longevity of a star being inversely proportional to it's mass and all.

Even normal galaxies (as in not "active galaxies") require a supermassive black hole at their core for them to remain stable.

Without a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy (at least every galaxy that has been looked at with Hubble), all of these galaxies would be "missing" half a percent of their mass.

What alternative model are you proposing? Are you hinting towards a supermassive neutron star perhaps, shielded from view by the orbiting mass around it?

Sorry this is all put in such laymens terms, you are both miles above me in your knowledge of this topic.

[Mr. B]

this looks interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6151

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Look-it that, (I) agree with Mr. B! :D

'Hawking Radiation' does NOT originate from the Black hole, BUT from the Affect of the Black Holes' gravitational Field on the surrounding space.

Aside from that, the Universe has no knowledge, and has NO information, both of those are Human Concepts, the appearance of 'loss' if there ever was any, would be due to Energy, NOT "information" and the energy Lost did NOT originate from within the Black Hole, (Or it's imediate environment) but simply occured at its' event horizon, as originating from the event horizons interaction with the Surrounding 'fabric (Ethers') of Spaces'(s') energies.

To much evidence for me to agree to thinking that 'they do not exist' ...they do!

[Epsilon=One]

Ep=1, I understand your reasoning for the non existence of black holes, but surely the fact that we don't have the maths done for exactly what is going on in a singularity doesn't necessarily mean that they therefore don't exist.Referring to a black hole as a singularity is ipso facto that black holes don’t exist. And, the definition of a black hole is such that it must be a singularity . . . yet, with properties (small, massive, having loci, etc.). Obviously, the entire concept is ludicrous. The existence of black holes is entirely dependent upon the manipulations of the symbols of general relativity (GR).

The weight of evidence in favour of their existence is huge.There is no known physical evidence for black holes (and the big bang); just the opposite.

Starting with active galaxies, how could central stars and dust at a distance of two light weeks from the galactic core rotate at te speed they do without a gravitational pull equivalent to several billion sun masses contained in a relatively small area?All careful studies of star motion within galaxies indicates that the force that holds the stars in their orbit cannot be coming from the central core (Besides, how can anyone believe in “attractive-action-at-a-distance (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/AAA)” as other than metaphysical???); the force is inward from outside the galactic, spheroidal halo. Only Pulsoid Theory (Overview) (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV) and its Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=479) can explain this compressive force that is referred to as Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/RHC) (RHC).

Without a black hole, where could the mass be stored? A star that size would burn itself out in a very short amount of time - the longevity of a star being inversely proportional to it's mass and all.This is one reason why Pulsoid Theory (Summary) (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Sum) is superior to anything that the Standard Models can offer regarding the cosmological enigmas.

Even normal galaxies (as in not "active galaxies") require a supermassive black hole at their core for them to remain stable.You would think so, if you believed the Standard Models over observation and logic. Remember, galaxies evolve from the explosion force of Critical Compression (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CrC) that creates quasars . . . all macro forces from the galactic core are outward.

Without a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy (at least every galaxy that has been looked at with Hubble), all of these galaxies would be "missing" half a percent of their mass.It is HST that verified accelerating, galactic recession, which is only explainable as the reactive force to that force that is compressing the galaxies; and, thereby holding the stars in their orbits.

What alternative model are you proposing? Are you hinting towards a supermassive neutron star perhaps, shielded from view by the orbiting mass around it?I know of no complete theory that can describe all observations of Nature other than Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PT).

Sorry this is all put in such laymens terms, you are both miles above me in your knowledge of this topic.If it can’t be explained to a layman, you can bet that it is illogical. Your concern and knowledge are amazing. Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated by the ordained elite. When they except the below challenge, I will treat them with respect; otherwise, I see only charlatans that are only concerned with their self-interest rather than the pursuit of intellection knowledge.

I'm sure I've raised more questions than I've answered. Continue asking questions, I know of no other way to illuminate a concept.

[Epsilon=One]

this looks interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6151This is a lot to do about nothing . . . and saving face.

A close reading will indicate they are arguing over the definition of a black hole. Originally a black hole was a general relativity "end of existence"; as such, it is counter to all physical laws. It is the original (Hawking) black hole that is ludicrous. Because of acquired connotations, the term is no longer acceptable for other phenomena.

For over fifty years I have been ridiculing the big bang, black holes, and neutrinos. Neutrinos were redefined in the '90s, making my early arguments moot (and awarding an acquaintance, Fred Reines, a Nobel). Now they are doing the same with black holes. And, inflation theory is a redefinition of the Big Bang. The scruples of high-stake, academic, theoretical physics are more questionable than ever.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

My 'close read' tells me that they are argueing over information theory, whether or not a Black Hole releases any of its' "information"...

Given that the ONLY thing in the Universe (that we all know of) that deals with information, is a Human, (And/or a Mind/Mindspace) well, I would guess what they are really talking about is energy and/or its' equivalent matter, and neither of those will exit a Black Holes' Environment....but not 'forever'.....

In an 'Ultimate End' scenario of the Universe the result is something akin to the return to the Nascent state, an Ultra-Supercompressed Mass (* The "Big Crunch!") that then re-expands (*the "Big Bang" for lack of any other easily recognizable term) as Gravitational Energy Instantaneously Collapses, slightly (exceedingly slightly) incompletely...

Then again, if a Special form of Symmetry is achieved, (Balance) it might just disappear from whence it originated, back into the Mind of 'God' .....as Thought.

Similar to Wave Cancelation seen in Interferometry.

Oh yes, trying to Imagine a/the 'Singularity' is about a Self-fooling/Self-Deceiving as is believing that you can imagine 'Infinity' (itself) ... or 'infinitely large' as either way is WRONG! ....as 'Infinity' is IN/UN-Concievable, there is NO "thought" available for it, no "thought" that Describes it .....either way, exceedingly small or exceedingly large, it simply defies "thought"/"imagining" and that applies to the Math too! ....especially to the Math, TOO!

[OfficeShredder]

Given that the ONLY thing in the Universe (that we all know of) that deals with information, is a Human, (And/or a Mind/Mindspace)


This isn't true..... information is often dealt with in quantum mechanics in a purely formal manner

[Epsilon=One]

This isn't true..... information is often dealt with in quantum mechanics in a purely formal mannerI agree. Again: semantics, connotations, definitions, etc.

This is why I so often use and reference neologisms, which some persons complain about. (I wish they would take the trouble to do the same.)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

This isn't true..... information is often dealt with in quantum mechanics in a purely formal manner Yes, BY HUMANS! :p


YIKES!!!!! :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

Yes, BY HUMANS! :p

YIKES!!!!! :eek:You not only are boorish with your comment; you apparently also have no understanding of the well defined meaning that "information" has in physics.

[Epsilon=One]

In an 'Ultimate End' scenario of the Universe the result is something akin to the return to the Nascent state, an Ultra-Supercompressed Mass (* The "Big Crunch!") that then re-expands (*the "Big Bang" for lack of any other easily recognizable term) as Gravitational Energy Instantaneously Collapses, slightly (exceedingly slightly) incompletely...There is no such physical "'Ultimate End' scenario of the Universe"; the Universe is unending.

Then again, if a Special form of Symmetry is achieved, (Balance) it might just disappear from whence it originated, back into the Mind of 'God' .....as Thought.If you believe that god has a mind, then you probably will believe anything. Symmetry either is or isn't; there is no "Special form of Symmetry." There is also no fundamental symmetry breaking in Nature as esposed by most physics laureates. Symmetry breaking is a contrivance that is required because physicists are unable to understand the mathematics of the elliptical geometry of the quantum field with its complex oscillations, harmonies, and ephemeral resonances.

Oh yes, trying to Imagine a/the 'Singularity' is about a Self-fooling/Self-Deceiving as is believing that you can imagine 'Infinity' (itself) ... or 'infinitely large' as either way is WRONG! ....as 'Infinity' is IN/UN-Concievable, there is NO "thought" available for it, no "thought" that Describes it .....either way, exceedingly small or exceedingly large, it simply defies "thought"/"imagining" and that applies to the Math too! ....especially to the Math, TOO!You know little of what you speak. See: Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

[Mr. B]

Tanks EP=1, that's helped clear things up a bit.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

1:01 PM 20/07/2006

You not only are boorish with your comment; you apparently also have no understanding of the well defined meaning that "information" has in physics.

and, as per what you have provided of that, the "well defined meaning that "information" has" well, you have none either...Makes you look rather well, Boorish (your Ad Hominem)......not really, more like someone fishing (Like Oprah Did) looking to Adjust your Opinion as to coorelate to mine outside of my knowledge of you doing it, and make it appear as if you, taught it to me.... :rolleyes:

Sad & :o 'd for you...

There is no such physical "'Ultimate End' scenario of the Universe"; the Universe is unending.

What? "thus decreed God!" ....or you?

If you believe that god has a mind, then you probably will believe anything. Symmetry either is or isn't; there is no "Special form of Symmetry." There is also no fundamental symmetry breaking in Nature as esposed by most physics laureates. Symmetry breaking is a contrivance that is required because physicists are unable to understand the mathematics of the elliptical geometry of the quantum field with its complex oscillations, harmonies, and ephemeral resonances.No it's Actually Everything...as All that is ever Experienced is "Truth" ...but sometimes the 'Truth' you experience is anothers' Lie(ing)....so (I) do Believe they lie ....too, hence Everything

So in your world everything is Symmetrical, right?

Funny cause in reality ....it isn't.

You know little of what you speak. See: Infinity.
Yes Please See Infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite) Wherein we find this Citation....
As cited from Wikipedia.org (www.wikipedia.org)
"The word infinity comes from the Latin infinitas or "unboundedness". (SNoP)

Hummmm, un-bounded means you cannot draw a Circle of ANY kind, so don't be fooled when they tell you "I'll make a Dot" cause that is Just a Circle Filled in (with/without color) it is still a 'delineation' (bound{ing}) of Space so a Bounding Which by Definition Is NOT allowed

Then Singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity) wherein we find these definitions:

As cited from Wikipedia.org (www.wikipedia.org)
Mathematical singularity, a point where a mathematical function goes to infinity or is in certain other ways ill-behaved

Mechanical singularity, a position or configuration of a mechanism or a machine where the subsequent behaviour cannot be predicted, or the forces or other physical quantities involved become infinite or undeterministic

Gravitational singularity, an infinity occurring in an astrophysical model, involving infinite curvature (a mathematical singularity) in the space/time continuum, namely black holes, white holes and worm holes

Technological singularity, a theoretical point in the development of a scientific civilization at which technological progress accelerates into infinity or beyond prediction

All of Which Involve POINTS (dots) in space, even to the Gravitational One seeing "An Infinity" occuring in a Point in Space! AND two of them, Ones (points) suspected of being occupied by Matter!!

(completely Redundant Logic, (I) tell ya!)

SO, if you can find a Point in space, it cannot represent Unbounded space, if you find a Mathematical point in space, call it infinite ..well, the space you find the 'un-defined point' in space in, must be Homogeneous Space, (Means roughly 'all the same in every direction') so ALL of the 'Findable' Points in that Space represent the Infinite, such that you have crossed the Definition of Infinite By Multiplication of what is, and can only be, singular in its' reality as an Un-bounded reality...nothing else....

The "Infinity of Infinities" Logic({et}al) E-r-r-o-r!

Oh Yes, much of the Ideas of symmetry come from the work of Emmy Noether, Sadly the work has a fatal Flaw that well, sidelines it a little in the discourse of the Universes' Presentation of the reality we all experience, and can experience

...you know like "banging your head on concrete" ( (I)'ll go first, "YUP! it hurt!")

Tanks EP=1, that's helped clear things up a bit. LOOk! a Puppy! chasing up the others Tail! :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

and, as per what you have provided of that, the "well defined meaning that "information" has" well, you have none either...Makes you look rather well, Boorish (your Ad Hominem)......not really, more like someone fishing (Like Oprah Did) looking to Adjust your Opinion as to coorelate to mine outside of my knowledge of you doing it, and make it appear as if you, taught it to me.... :rolleyes:

Sad & :o 'd for you...
Concerning “information”:You know not of what you write; see below Wikipedia entry:

Main article: Physical information
Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light.

Information itself cannot travel faster than light even if the information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to the fact that all attempts at physically observing a particle with an "entangled" relationship to another are slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

Another link is demonstrated by the Maxwell's demon thought experiment. In this experiment, a direct relationship between information and another physical property, entropy, is demonstrated. A consequence is that it is impossible to destroy information without increasing the entropy of a system; in practical terms this often means generating heat. Thus, in the study of logic gates, the theoretical lower bound of thermal energy released by an AND gate is more than for the NOT gate (because information is destroyed in an AND gate and simply converted in a NOT gate). Physical information is of particular importance in the theory of quantum computers.

So in your world everything is Symmetrical, right?[Stop editing without so stating when you quote me. It is dishonest.]

Note that I referred to “fundamental” symmetry…; and in that context my answer is: Yes! I do not consider phenomena that is subject to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle as fundamental symmetry breaking.

Funny cause in reality ....it isn't.You are entitled to an opinion; however, it would be more convincing if you would define what you mean by “symmetry” and “reality.” (What is your meaning of Symmetry when you use the uppercase “s”?)

Hummmm, un-bounded means you cannot draw a Circle of ANY kind, so don't be fooled when they tell you "I'll make a Dot" cause that is Just a Circle Filled in (with/without color) it is still a 'delineation' (bound{ing}) of Space so a Bounding Which by Definition Is NOT allowedWhat’s your point concerning my definition of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity)? What specific part of my original definition do you disagree with? Your rambling words concerning infinity throughout your last post have little meaning when considered in total.

[Epsilon=One]

NewScientist Magazine, July 20, 2006

Bubble ousts black hole at centre of the galaxy. (http://www.CQthus.info/Bubbles)
http://www.CQthus.info/Bubble

This article indicates how little academia actually knows about what phenomena is at the center of galaxies.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Concerning “information”:You know not of what you write; see below Wikipedia entry: (I) did, And it tells of the interactions of Energy and matter as read as Information ...BY Humans


[Stop editing without so stating when you quote me. It is dishonest.] Exactly what you have been caught doing, Me? Color &/or Bold ...sometimes I-t-a-l-i-c-s-....

Note that I referred to “fundamental” symmetry…; and in that context my answer is: Yes! I do not consider phenomena that is subject to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle as fundamental symmetry breaking. So, if the Work of Ms Noether is actually wrong, then .....so is yours.

Ms Noether explains that a Perfect rod translates through space perfectly, and even admits knowledge/knowing that that is NOT the case in reality.....

So what is Physics? Idealized (by usage of mathematics) perfection or Reality as the Non-Idealized (Idiosyncratic) event? ...a redundant question as application of Logic to the Premise of the Noether work tells us that it is Founded upon a Perfection that is NOT observed/observable which is why (I) note that it is even admitted that it is Known that reality does NOT follow "Perfect translations through Space"

Nice work though.

You are entitled to an opinion; however, it would be more convincing if you would define what you mean by “symmetry” and “reality.” (What is your meaning of Symmetry when you use the uppercase “s”?)(I) have already Linked Wikipedia for you, you have demonstrated Some knowledge of how to go there, in the Lower left hand corner/side is the "Enter you search here" Box, Go ahead

What’s your point concerning my definition of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity)? What specific part of my original definition do you disagree with? Your rambling words concerning infinity throughout your last post have little meaning when considered in total.Singularity

Probably because even as a math teacher your not that good at adding, (Totalling) Especially words!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

NewScientist Magazine, July 20, 2006

Bubble ousts black hole at centre of the galaxy. (http://www.CQthus.info/Bubbles)
http://www.CQthus.info/Bubble

This article indicates how little academia actually knows about what phenomena is at the center of galaxies.One link doesn't work, the other leads to a "required subscription" site...

So it really shows how little you know? about the internet...?

[Epsilon=One]

Exactly what you have been caught doing, Me? Color &/or Bold ...sometimes I-t-a-l-i-c-s-....I have never fraudulently edited your quotes; as you continue to do with mine. Have you no scruples?

(I) have already Linked Wikipedia for you, you have demonstrated Some knowledge of how to go there, in the Lower left hand corner/side is the "Enter you search here" Box, Go aheadLinks mean little when what I am after is your interpretation. You continuously misrepresent what you research. Post what you are referring to; then add your comments.

I must continuely reply because you are continuously deceptive. Just look at your last post and the misleading weaseling regarding the Wikipedia quote that I posted.

SingularityYou are incorrigibly misleading with your editing of my quote that you replied to with "Singularity". How can anything you write be believed as being sincere when you continue as you do. If you insist on manipulating quotes, so advise the reader.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I have never fraudulently edited your quotes; as you continue to do with mine. Have you no scruples?You have quoted me changing my question into a Statement, just this week, but apparently you have ALREADY forgotten that!...so (I) can only Imagine that you do 'believe' that you do have "scruples"...

Links mean little when what I am after is your interpretation. You continuously misrepresent what you research. Post what you are referring to; then add your comments.As (I) had Said, (Common) "Simple truths" hence "commonly defined" (Wiki) works well for me ....so long as the definitions do NOT change over time

I must continuely reply because you are continuously deceptive. Just look at your last post and the misleading weaseling regarding the Wikipedia quote that I posted.YET Another Ad Hominem Again! & from YOU

You are incorrigibly misleading with your editing of my quote that you replied to with "Singularity". How can anything you write be believed as being sincere when you continue as you do. If you insist on manipulating quotes, so advise the reader.Dear reader, (I) sometimes Color in my quotations of Others, and sorry, no (I) really didn't believe that any of the rest of the readers other then EP1 Were SO STUPID that they coudn't see that on the Page for themselves, and therefore Needed "Forewarning"

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Btw, if my explanation of "Singularity" escapes you so well/easily maybe it is because in your life, you know something about Mathematics, BUT you (seemingly) know NOTHING about Art!

What Created this Universe is THE Artist

Maybe you should take a course (or two!) in it, learn something.....New.

(Why Did (I) capitalize the N in New??? {Insert exclamation} What does it mean???? ...it means (I) hit the "Shift" Key)

[Epsilon=One]

You have quoted me changing my question into a Statement, just this week, but apparently you have ALREADY forgotten that!...so (I) can only Imagine that you do 'believe' that you do have "scruples"...You are entirely mistaken . . . WRONG. Please check the facts as I explained in detail. Your comment in this post is a fine example of your dishonest posting that misleads those that don't bother to check facts.

I repeat: There is no truth to your above statement. Please give an example so the reader can judge.

Dear reader, (I) sometimes Color in my quotations of Others, and sorry, no (I) really didn't believe that any of the rest of the readers other then EP1 Were SO STUPID that they coudn't see that on the Page for themselves, and therefore Needed "Forewarning"The practice is dishonest without noting what you are doing.

Many readers do not or cannot find the original quote that you have mangled.

You also paraphrase and make statements concerning the positions of others that are false; then proceed to mock the false position that you have created.

You misrepresent and waste everyone's time to a point of indecency. If you cannot honestly debate; why bother? Misrepresenting others and wasting time does not gain much in the overall argument.

I have asked you repeatedly to debate original and controversial/alternative subjects of mathematics and physics that I have presented. Instead you continue with side issue misrepresentation; as your last post is a fine example.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You are entirely mistaken . . . WRONG. Please check the facts as I explained in detail. Your comment in this post is a fine example of your dishonest posting that misleads those that don't bother to check facts.
I repeat: There is no truth to your above statement. Please give an example so the reader can judge.
The practice is dishonest without noting what you are doing.
Many readers do not or cannot find the original quote that you have mangled.
You also paraphrase and make statements concerning the positions of others that are false; then proceed to mock the false position that you have created.
You misrepresent and waste everyone's time to a point of indecency. If you cannot honestly debate; why bother? Misrepresenting others and wasting time does not gain much in the overall argument.
I have asked you repeatedly to debate original and controversial/alternative subjects of mathematics and physics that I have presented. Instead you continue with side issue misrepresentation; as your last post is a fine example.
HERE (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=832&page=3) as it states in post #25 you changed my post in your quotation of it, changing my QUESTION into a STATEMENT....

So all of the above Raving/Ranting of yours applies ONLY TO YOU!

Talk about Mr. Ad Hominem thats YOU! :eek:

[black eyes]

A lot of money and academic resources are afforded the pursuit of theoretical science every year.
A lot of scientists and students are not putting much effort into concern for the actual world processes.

Many enjoy the thrill of roaring rockets and theories on the greater aspects of Space and the Universe, but there are many more mysteries in our local physical universe than in deep Space.

To assume that a human, on this planet, at this time in our history, can or could in any quantatative way percieve, let alone understand the basic fundamental laws of it all. It is not even important when sciece won't put in the time and effort to keep hundreds of thousands of people from perishing from circumstances easily corrected.

Science is always important, but to use fortunes to explore theoretical ideas and really abstract concepts is premature when so many aspects of human living could be improved and asvanced.

[Epsilon=One]

HERE (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=832&page=3) as it states in post #25 you changed my post in your quotation of it, changing my QUESTION into a STATEMENT....Posts #26 and #28 on your referenced page, at "HERE (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=832&page=3)," details how you are mistaken. This post without reference to those pages is deceptive and would seem to be attempting to perpetrate a fraud for there are many Viewers that will take your statement at face value without checking its veracity. This common practice of yours is abominable.

So all of the above Raving/Ranting of yours applies ONLY TO YOU!

Talk about Mr. Ad Hominem thats YOU! :eek:In light of my above comment, these quoted comments of yours are histrionic and despicable.

[Epsilon=One]

A lot of money and academic resources are afforded the pursuit of theoretical science every year.
A lot of scientists and students are not putting much effort into concern for the actual world processes.

Many enjoy the thrill of roaring rockets and theories on the greater aspects of Space and the Universe, but there are many more mysteries in our local physical universe than in deep Space.

To assume that a human, on this planet, at this time in our history, can or could in any quantatative way percieve, let alone understand the basic fundamental laws of it all. It is not even important when sciece won't put in the time and effort to keep hundreds of thousands of people from perishing from circumstances easily corrected.

Science is always important, but to use fortunes to explore theoretical ideas and really abstract concepts is premature when so many aspects of human living could be improved and asvanced.I am reposting your entire post.

I not only agree with your comments; but I also feel the comments are of great significance if life as we know it, is to survive.

I would like to think that you will understand and emphasize to others the importance of Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Conceptualism).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

"Black eyes" please, read the forewarning Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=970&page=2) otherwise, venture in at you own peril.

But the rest of the Forum works, and has well, some people here that haven't yet been scared off....

[Ana_Albania]

I'm sorry if i'm posting in the wrong place! :)
My name is Ana and it's my first time in this Forum. I love Physics and actually i'm working in a project that i'll show in a theatre of my hometown.
If you're interested in that, i'll be very happy to take your ideas in consideration.

I'm interesting in finding more information for Black Holes!
By the way, I think that Black Holes exist today...Why?

[Epsilon=One]

I'm interesting in finding more information for Black Holes!
By the way, I think that Black Holes exist today...Why?There is much information concerning black holes available on the internet or at your local library.

I am in the process of preparing a short essay concerning black holes. At the moment, I am quite busy; though, I hope the essay will be finished by mid-October. When finished, I will post it here. You can contact me by e-mail (see below) and I will keep you posted with preliminary drafts.

I can assure you that as conventionally defined, black holes do not exist.

For years I said the same thing about massless neutrinos while arguing with Fred Reines; then, the definition was changed . . . and, Fred won the Nobel; and, I was wrong.

The same may happen with black holes that are now defined in many ways. I have been fighting the concept of black holes, which are basically a mathematical contrivance, for decades; just as I have fought against the Big Bang well before it became a Standard Model (SM).

Despite what you may read, a black hole has never been observed.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCK

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)

[Epsilon=One]

Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCKI believe that I would rather be a “PEACOCK” than an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Hopefully, your above statement can be construed as meaning you no longer will waste my time with your distortions.

Your continuing behavior is beyond the norm for civilized dialogue. Though you don’t seem to understand the Renaissance spirit of this forum, I hope you appreciate that spirit; as nowhere else would such personal, off-topic attacks and diatribe be tolerated.

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)Ad hominem argument is weak; if you are going to make spurious charges, you should be able to back them up. Exactly what statement of mine that I have made concerning physics, math, or philosophy do you find “FALSE”? If such is the case, I would very much like to correct it.