Science & Space :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board).
from the newsdesk
[www.universetoday.com]
WAS THE BIG BANG JUST A BLACK HOLE?
and since you can not do your math
it means THAT math isn't actually describing
what is really going on
it gives partial answers within limits
just like "epicycles" gave answers that appeared
to be correct but did not reflect what was going on
and epicycles were rejected because they didn't account for everything
and a simpler, more extensive math replaced it
now general relativity gives answers within limits
but breaks down when trying to account for everything
so it is not unreasonable to say that general relativity
gives answers analogous to epicycles, and does not actually
describe what's going on
so the "new ideas and required new math" to answer those questions,
and to replace general relativity, may be as different as those that
replaced "everything revolves around the earth
and the epicycles needed to justify it"
How can "general relativity" give you a solution when you admit that the math breaks down?
what are the other "set of solutions to the mathematics of that scenario?
why was that "solution", out of several solutions,
none of which could be resolved by your math
selected as the "chosen one"?
[www.universetoday.com]
WAS THE BIG BANG JUST A BLACK HOLE?
Quote
1. Did the whole Universe start off from a really massive black hole?
Paul: Thanks, Fraser. So, when we’re looking at singularities, it’s important to keep in mind what a singularity is. A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that’s not really a thing. It just means that the mathematics that we’re using to describe the thing have broken down. Like we get infinities in our answers when we try to calculate what’s going on. In as far as we know, these kinds of things, these breakdowns in the mathematics, happen in two places. One is at the center of a black hole, where stuff is compressed down so much that we can’t follow the math anymore, and the other time is in the very early universe, when the entire universe is crunched down into such a tiny volume at such high densities that we can’t follow the math any more. So that’s the only thing that they have in common – that there’s a singularity, which means that we can’t do the math any more.
and since you can not do your math
it means THAT math isn't actually describing
what is really going on
it gives partial answers within limits
just like "epicycles" gave answers that appeared
to be correct but did not reflect what was going on
and epicycles were rejected because they didn't account for everything
and a simpler, more extensive math replaced it
now general relativity gives answers within limits
but breaks down when trying to account for everything
so it is not unreasonable to say that general relativity
gives answers analogous to epicycles, and does not actually
describe what's going on
so the "new ideas and required new math" to answer those questions,
and to replace general relativity, may be as different as those that
replaced "everything revolves around the earth
and the epicycles needed to justify it"
Quote
And it’s important to remember here just how different black holes are from the early universe. In both cases, we’re using general relativity – these are the laws of gravity – they govern the laws of these systems. But we’re using the same set of equations in different scenarios. We’re using them to describe different things. A black hole is a particular solution to Einstein’s equations of general relativity, and that solution comes about from asking the question “If I take a bunch of stuff over there and compact it down to incredibly high densities, what happens?” The answer is that you get a singularity surrounded by an event horizon. That’s one particular set of solutions to the mathematics of that scenario.
How can "general relativity" give you a solution when you admit that the math breaks down?
what are the other "set of solutions to the mathematics of that scenario?
why was that "solution", out of several solutions,
none of which could be resolved by your math
selected as the "chosen one"?
Subject | Views | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
dividing by zero | 1009 | laughin | 18-Feb-16 15:17 |
getting rid of singularities, big bang, expansion, and dark stuff | 382 | laughin | 22-Feb-16 19:47 |
Re: getting rid of singularities, big bang, expansion, and dark stuff | 424 | Avocet | 22-Feb-16 22:43 |
ether | 386 | brett z | 22-Feb-16 23:39 |
Re: ether | 352 | D-Archer | 23-Feb-16 12:21 |
Re: ether | 323 | carolb | 23-Feb-16 16:39 |
Re: ether | 315 | skakos | 24-Feb-16 13:31 |
getting rid of other stuff | 249 | laughin | 23-Feb-16 15:16 |
different aspects | 263 | brett z | 24-Feb-16 23:22 |
Re: different aspects | 336 | laughin | 25-Feb-16 01:38 |
Re: different aspects | 354 | brett z | 25-Feb-16 23:53 |
scientific derivative just a destructive as financial ones | 269 | laughin | 25-Feb-16 17:14 |
Re: scientific derivative just a destructive as financial ones | 431 | D-Archer | 26-Feb-16 11:21 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.