On 7/22/2010 11:02 AM, Warp wrote:
>> In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a
>> plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that
>> even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles.
>
>    Matter/energy degenerates under such enormous gravity, forming something
> which doesn't happen normally elsewhere. It retains certain properties
> (such as mass) because energy cannot be destroyed nor created, but its
> physiology may be completely different than normally.
>
>    It's the same as what happened in the first moments of the Big Bang.
> There were no particles until later.
>
Based on what? Observation? At best you can't say one is more plausible 
than the other, and at worst, having to make up a whole set of 
assumptions about how all the laws of physics differ in black holes *is* 
a violation of Occam's Razor itself, imo. One extra rule, which fits 
with known math involving non-black holes, or a whole different set, 
which only matter after you get past the "edge", where you can't observe 
if they are true or not anyway. Those seem to be the options, and there 
is nothing that the later ones provide, in the way of useful 
experiments, or even utility wise, which is "necessary" to explain 
anything that can't be explained with standard physics, as long as you 
allow for one equation having a special case, again, instead of dozens 
of others.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message