The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD

pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote





"weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote
"weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"BRAINIAC" <nour...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me
back to reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up
about half way through because the math was beyond anything
I had. However, the second half of the book is more theoretical
and has less math.   I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several
years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The
Emperor's New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections
on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature
predominates, but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl
curvature predominates.
The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the
table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
chump together.
Roger Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given
off by a body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can
excape from a black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small,
therefore the black hole itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming
out of it, rather than falling in.

--Wax

What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
no entropy there!
what you are describing is the outside!
Why compare the outside of a black hole
with the inside of the universe ?
Of course you won't get symmetry that way!

What I am describing is a black hole.

You are incorrectly trying to describe the singularity at the center of a
black hole.   Singularities are formed when a large star literally burns
out.  With no remaining force to oppose the pressure of gravitation, the
star collapses.  This is a state of high entropy.

--Wax- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message

news:a2d80459-2861-42f2-8e8f-b91bea10aa50@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of  no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe

The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.

But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.

But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

On Apr 17, 9:33 pm, "weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:





pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote

"weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"BRAINIAC" <nour...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way
through because the math was beyond anything I had. However,
the second half of the book is more theoretical and has less math.
I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several years ago and wish I
knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's
New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and
Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates,
but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates.
The result:  The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold.  All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed.  That means that it
has maximum temperature.  (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy.  For example:  If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor.  If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost.  It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

        Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
    because of its universally attractive nature.  We are used to
    thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
    having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
    entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
    equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly.  But with gravity, thing
    tend to be the other way about.  A uniformly spread system of
    gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
    whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
    chump together.
                                                                Roger
Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given off by a
body.   With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can excape from a
black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small, therefore the black hole
itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

Wow you guys are close.Actually according to this alternate theory you
cant have singularities because every time you try you end up with a
black hole and if you remember the theory it predicts that the time
dilating effects expand space.
Every time you create a black hole you expand space so I suppose you
could say that all of that newly created space gets in the way of
forming that hypothetical singularity.You cant have singularities
without the gravity and you cant have gravity without its time slowing
effects and you cant have those time slowing effects without
contracting matter and expanding the space.
Probably worth noting how this expanding space effect may give the
same predictions as those now credited for how gravitational binding
energy works to conserve the total original amount of gravity.



What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming out of it,
rather than falling in.

An event horizon seen from the inside of a black hole ends up being a
white hole.Remember that expanded space can very easily end you up
with more space than the original event horizon could originally
contain.This alternate theory gets to predict some rather odd things
about how our white hole or rather now as white holes as they would
appear as broken up into different locations would appear and
behave.Easy to understand how their repulsive gravity's would be a bit
like throwing objects at the sky and then claiming the sky has
antigravity properties but the stuff about how they should behave in
some ways like wormholes would be more surprising.
They will need to be observable in our universe for this theory to be
valid but keep in mind that even white holes can appear dark if
nothing falls into them from the previous universe.But if lots do fall
into them and randomly then they could easily appear like quasars.I
should post asking about the idea that quasars could be these types of
white holes and its easy to disprove if any object has ever been seen
accelerating towards one.
alttheories.com
Dale

--Wax

Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:glgh04lm8io827efcf6dlegu0cc8mkkv4n@4ax.com...

| On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:04:26 -0500, "adman" <72545@hottmail.et
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
|
| ><lithium@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
| >news:1969f58d-840e-4fa1-89ce-992a144c2913@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
|
| >| On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
| >| > <lith...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
| >|
| >|
| >news:60fb6915-c2fd-46c1-a062-46e468d1f0b1@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| >|
| >| > | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com
wrote:
| >| > | > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| >| > | > > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
| >| > | > >news:u2fsv3594vikgpjgff4cgecrdasq2u7t0k@4ax.com... | On Thu, 10
Apr
| >| > 2008
| >| > | > > 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> enriched
| >this
| >| > | > > group when s/he wrote: |
| >| > | > > | >adman wrote:
| >| > | > > | >> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote [...]: | >> | I will
| >state,
| >| > | > > quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | >> |
from
| >| > | > > himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is |
|
| >| > | > > mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to
| >have |
| >| > | > > >> | come about by natural causes.
| >| > | > > | >> |
| >| > | > > | >> | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him
| >(his
| >| > | > > email | >> | address is available in a number of places. I'm
sure
| >he
| >| > | > > will tell one | >> | of his junior assistants to tell you to
f*ck
| >off
| >| > | > > and stop being so | >> | stupid.
| >| > | > > |
| >| > | > > | >> Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came
up
| >with?
| >| > |
| >| > |
| >| > | > > | >No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him,
but
| >|
| >| > >I
| >| > | > > can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
|
| >| > | > > | >'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to
| >refuted,
| >| > |
| >| > | > > >if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| >| > | > > | I trust the Professor.
| >| > | > > Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web
| >page:
| >| > | > > "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been,
| >namely
| >| > to
| >| > | > > an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary
| >figure."
| >| > |
| >| > | > Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders
of
| >| > | > magnitude among friends?
| >| > |
| >| > | > Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
| >| > |
| >| > | > "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose
| >has
| >| > | > estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular
set
| >of
| >| > | > physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989:
343).
| >| > | > However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the
| >other
| >| > | > possible universes formed with different properties could still
have
| >| > lead
| >| > | > to some form of life.
| >| > |
| >| > | That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and
you
| >| > | will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| >| > | statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| >| > | where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still
be
| >| > | a very large number against but remember that this is the
statistics
| >| > | for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want
the
| >| > | the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| >| > | other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| >| > | existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| >| > | possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are
unfortunately
| >| > | biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| >| > | See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid
ammonia
| >| > | replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| >| > | I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| >| > | solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| >| > | meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to
make
| >| > | some myself to find out what it meant.
| >| > | Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the
chances
| >| > | of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| >| > | mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| >| > | Dale
| >|
| >| > has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we
know
| >| > being elsewhere in the universe
| >|
| >| Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| >| similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| >| some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| >| spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| >| extreme odds against that.
|
|
|
| >Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that
atmosphere
| >earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
| >twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension
say
| >least
|
| Our atmosphere is a product of life.
|
|
|
| >However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
| >that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar
earth
| >in my opinion is a waste of time.
|
| You have shown that your opinion is coloured by an unscientific view
| of things.
|
| [snip rot.]



How did she get out of my kill file. Back in their.



Plonk*

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ho3Oj.209727$cQ1.94837@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

|
| <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote
| > "weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| >> <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote
| >>>"weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| >>>> "BRAINIAC" <nour...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
|
| >>>>> And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
| >>>>> my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
| >>>>> completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
| >>>>> you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.
|
| >>>> Brainiac,
|
| >>>> One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me
| >>>> back to reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up
| >>>> about half way through because the math was beyond anything
| >>>> I had. However, the second half of the book is more theoretical
| >>>> and has less math. I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several
| >>>> years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.
|
| >>>> You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The
| >>>> Emperor's New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections
| >>>> on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
| >>>> Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature
| >>>> predominates, but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl
| >>>> curvature predominates.
| >>>> The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
| >>>> are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
| >>>> symmetric.
|
| >>>> Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
| >>>> believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
| >>>> Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
| >>>> of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
| >>>> doing that.
|
| >>>> --Wax
| >>>The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
| >>>The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter
inside
| >>>the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
| >>>has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
| >>>regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has
the
| >>>same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.
|
| >> A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
| >> table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
| >> object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
| >> take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the
| >> table.
|
| >> The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".
|
| >> Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
| >> because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
| >> thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
| >> having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
| >> entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
| >> equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
| >> tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
| >> gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
| >> whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
| >> chump together.
| >> Roger Penrose
|
| >> Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given
| >> off by a body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can
| >> excape from a black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small,
| >> therefore the black hole itself is cold.
|
| >>>Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
| >>>500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
| >>>was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
| >>>radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
| >>>comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)
|
| >> What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming
| >> out of it, rather than falling in.
|
| > --Wax
|
| >What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
| >no entropy there!
| >what you are describing is the outside!
| >Why compare the outside of a black hole
| >with the inside of the universe ?
| >Of course you won't get symmetry that way!
|
| What I am describing is a black hole.
|
| You are incorrectly trying to describe the singularity at the center of a
| black hole. Singularities are formed when a large star literally burns
| out. With no remaining force to oppose the pressure of gravitation, the
| star collapses. This is a state of high entropy.
|
| --Wax



Incorrect



The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD

Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics.
They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes."



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

On 18 apr, 17:00, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:



pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message

news:a2d80459-2861-42f2-8e8f-b91bea10aa50@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe

The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.

But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.

But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

You might be right calling a black hole a seperate universe,
scientists have proposed as much.

As for the problem of the first black hole,
that is insolvable. One can only see one's own universe and detect the
black holes inside that. One cannot detect the parent universe and the
sister-black holes insiode that! (nor any grandchild black hole).

For all we know our universe could be of the billionth generation,
Or it could be the fist one ever

Agnosticism steps in here:-)
We just cannot know!

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Nethelands

On Apr 19, 5:22 am, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:



On 18 apr, 17:00, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:

pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message

news:a2d80459-2861-42f2-8e8f-b91bea10aa50@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe

The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.

But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.

But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

You might be right calling a black hole a seperate universe,
scientists have proposed as much.

Here is something I just don't get,its all so easy to test so why has
no one notced anything.For example if you draw a planet to scale on a
piece of paper everything will match up ok but if the alternative
theory is right then when you go to actually measure the dimensions
and distances for a planet from both inside and then outside of the
gravity well they will not match up.
What I mean is for matter to contract in such a way that you end up
with measuring more space because your rulers have become shorter you
will end up not only measuring more circumference for a planet but the
distances from orbit will also be more.The planet will just not fit
the scale drawings on paper.
This whole thing should have shown up somewhere when the GPS or some
other use of satellites and earth or maybe they just never looked.
Obviously if you don't get these extra measures then its a bit
unlikely that black holes could be shown to be other universes unless
you could find some other odd theory to explain it leaving the whole
idea much more questionable.

My favorite analogy briefly examined here is where I bring up the idea
of Zeno's paradox but I go on to ask what would happen if you also
decreased the arrows length by 1/2 each time it was 1/2 way to the
target and then point out that from the arrows point of view all of
its references on length are equally effected.
Then I point out how this could work in examining the idea of what
ones prospective might be on approaching a black hole.This also works
to illustrate what to look for when measuring for this effect around
planets etc.Remember you can find much more on my postings than on my
site at this time.www.alttheories.com
Dale


I forgot to add

As for the problem of the first black hole,
that is insolvable. One can only see one's own universe and detect the
black holes inside that. One cannot detect the parent universe and the
sister-black holes insiode that! (nor any grandchild black hole).

For all we know our universe could be of the billionth generation,
Or it could be the fist one ever

Agnosticism steps in here:-)
We just cannot know!

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Nethelands

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
|
| > The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
|
| Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| was saying.
|
| --Wax

It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:bEfOj.212829$cQ1.68422@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
|
| > The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
|
| Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose was saying.
|
| --Wax

It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics

|
|

You have clearly shown that you do not understand what Penrose (or any

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > |
| > | > The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
| > |
| > | Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| > | was saying.
| > |
| > | --Wax
|
| > It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
|
| Not at all.
|
| Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is looking
for
| a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)

The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?



|
| --Wax
|
|

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:r7KOj.3956$q51.2046@fe087.usenetserver.com...

|
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
|
| > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > |
| > | > | > The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
| > | > |
| > | > | Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| > | > | was saying.
| > | > |
| > | > | --Wax
| > |
| > | > It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
| > |
| > | Not at all.
| > |
| > | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
looking
| > for
| > | a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| > | Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
|
| > The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
|
|
|
| > |
| > | --Wax
| > |
| > |
|
|
| Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| Somestuff....

|

Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory to
make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is that
we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven yet
beyond a doubt.