Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
My Reply-the Complete Concept

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Gfjhgvfgb on June 5, 2004 18:11:31 UTC

The only thing that can definitely PROVE me wrong is an observational EVIDENCE discarding GR or at least the singularity or a perfectly working TOE excluding singularities.Everything exept that is just a suggestion.First,I would like to point out that when I was talking about QED infinities I didn't mean that QED nowdays have infinities(they have been removed a long time ago)but I wanted to point out that my concept has nothing to do with point particle theory.Then,I would like to point out that GR is complete and perfectly working as far as gravity is concerned.GR is a theory of gravity and it dials only with GRAVITY.You can't say it's wrong because of something outside its sphere of applicability.GR infinity is a gravitational one and without TOE it is still out there.The singularity problem in GR is still unsolved.Third,I would like to point out that the postulate:"infinity can not eist in reality" is just a CONJECTURE,not a LAW in our physics.And this is its status without a TOE.And finally,the best for the end,although I can not provide an conclusive evidence for the existence of singularities now,I can provide such in case of naked singularity or white hole.The singularity hidden behind an event horizon is unaccesible even for observation but a naked singularity is not.So give me a naked singularity and I can put this concept to the test.If the singularity really is nothing and all the laws of physics are broken in it than why does it have to have any characteristics at all-it would simply be an unmovable part of the space in which all the laws of physics flaw.That means that if you have a black hole and charge it enough so it becomes a naked singularity than the entire gravity field of the black hole will simply disappear in an instant leaving an unmovable singularity.A potential experiment,isn't it?Another prediction-a naked singularity can defy the conservation laws because no laws are existant in it.That means that it can both create and destroy matter.Another prediction.A white hole has a singularity in its center so it will spit all the matter the singularity creates.And because no rules can be applied to the nothing so the same will be for the matter created by the white hole singularity.And finally the best.We don't observe any naked singularities or white holes but we do observe that there is matter in this universe.What could have created it.Although there are some theories neither is yet tested and in science-the simpler the better.So isn't it simpler that the naked singularity in the beginning which was the nothing before the Big Bang could have created all the matter in the universe in the same manner a naked singularity today can create matter if we manage to find one to test this concept.That's my reply

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins