On 7/23/2010 10:27 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> 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?
>
>    Pretty much, yes. Observation in the sense that GR has hold up pretty
> well in a very large amount of different experiments (including things
> like gravitation lensing and orbital measurements of the Moon).
>
Same argument could have, at one time, been made about Newtonian 
physics. The first examples of where that didn't work where people 
going, "Yeah, but.. what about in this case?"

>    To say that singularities can't exist you would have to demonstrate
> somehow that GR stops working when matter density goes high enough (but
> is still finite). AFAIK no such observation has been made, so the *simpler*
> explanation at this moment is to assume that GR does hold even with
> extremely high densities because it doesn't require any additional, yet
> unknown, physical models.
>
Yes it does, it requires matter and energy (which is generally the same 
thing) to achieve some undefined state, it requires violations of other 
physical rules, like particles holding the same point in space, and a 
whole host of other "unexplained" things. Last I checked they didn't 
have even the math to describe what things actually look like past the 
event horizon, never mind explain what, if anything, the core ends up 
being made of, since it obviously, isn't likely particles. There are 
problems with the theory, once you get past the point where you can even 
theoretically observe, predict, etc., the outcome. Even the explanations 
go something like, "And then once you travel past the horizon you get 
torn apart and there is nothing but chaos.", which is a fairly lame way 
of saying, "We don't have a damn clue, but something has to happen, and 
its the only thing we can think of, if GR applies." That's not even a 
description, its a wild guess, with no details at all.

>    One known physical model is simpler than one known plus one unknown
> (especially when there's no experimental observation of where the latter
> becomes more prominent than the former, so drawing the line between the
> two is pretty much impossible).
>
But, its **not** known. You yourself admit, mind, as a layman, that you 
have no clue what "is" in the core of a black hole. I can say, as 
someone that reads a lot about it, that the physicists don't have much 
better idea. At best, they can point to some sort of QM, which doesn't 
really give them any better idea, or string theory, which many are not 
sure even describe a real thing, and can't make predictions, of *any* 
sort, etc. They don't know. A chart of a black holes structure might as 
well be an ancient map, with the center marks, "Here be dragons."

-- 
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