Since there does not exist DISTANCE in a SINGULARITY....neither does any TOPOLOGY exist that would allow Topological Mapping. Topology (from the Greek τόπος, "place", and λόγος, "study") is the mathematical study of shapes and topological spaces. It is an area of mathematics concerned with the properties of space that are preserved under continuous deformations including stretching and bending, but not tearing or gluing. Since a SINGULARITY is the TEARING OF THE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME....a Singularity has no Topology. AboveAlpha
The only Topology would exist as our normal 10-D Plus Universal Space-Time Geometry Warps inward toward the point of Singularity. The actual Point of Singularity has no existing Topology that would allow Topographical Mapping. AboveAlpha
Your source? You didn't mention who or what that was. Well, I think the Grandfather paradox is just a figurative description of what might happen to particles. The fact that it's retold using people is rather unimportant to the central idea. I'm not sure about that, however, and I'm sure I'll be corrected by one of the experts here if I'm wrong. What I'm hearing now, is that the state is set when a particle moves through a CTC and it emerges at the other end in the same state. There was a 50% chance of it killing itself and that state was set on it when it went through. It was meant to go through and it did, some might say set on the path to be what it was. I guess.
The fact is that science does not really dont know anything solid* about a singularity because its off limits to our current tools of science. The event horizon is the ultimate road block to discovery. * Hawking was speaking of a singularity when he said we need new physics to understand the singularity. Does anyone know that Dr Hawking is now saying that there are no black holes? Classical BH as described by 50 years or more of scientists do not exist. Of course that is nothing new to us that know science can change its claims and often do. The science of today that many of you defend tooth and nail, will be quaint myth in the future. The truths that you base your reality on is not truth but only a guess that in many cases is actually NOT true. I can not live my life marred in a reality that could very well be as wrong as any Bellevue psychopath could dream up...of course I still love and respect science for what it is. Astronomy and cosmology are my darlings lol... reva
The thing about knowledge is that is it formed by relying upon past knowledge which has been challenged, tested and verified to the best of our ability at the time. True knowledge comes from the process of criticism, review and insights. The truth that parts of what we know today may be found wanting down the road is not a statement invalidating all that we know today, it is an affirmation that all knowledge is incomplete because the very act of learning more about the world creates even more questions than it answers. If we were alive 200 years ago, none of us would have questioned Newtonian physics and all observable phenomenon would have supported his discoveries. Yet they were challenged by another point of view which until it was proven to be true, was just another hypothesis. Did that make Newton wrong? In part yes but his findings still remain useful for the world we see on a daily basis, it was only when we started to see reality at the very small and very large that Newton fell short. The cycle then repeats itself today. There is no other way to gain knowledge that allows us to get closer and closer to fully understanding reality. That is why science is the fundamental human methodology which has transformed everything. Critics of science point to this process as an impossible task that has limitations as if that by itself proves that knowledge is unattainable. That is pure hogwash. If not science, then what? Should we return to times when no one asked any questions about anything and just accepted some untestable and imaginary answer to all reality? Is that the advice of these critics?
Well the beauty of Science and the Scientific Method is that it allows for new data and new understandings. What I find as REALLY STUPID is when some people attack Science and call it a Religion which is so far from reality it is hard to understand WHY such religious people would say such a thing. The facts are there is no conflict between Science and one's FAITH. Faith is completely different from science as FAITH is all about believing in something even when no evidence or proof exists to support or back such beliefs. Science and the Scientific Method is just a methodology to help us determine aspects of Reality....and it is the best existing methodology as it uses Logic, Observation, Experimentation, Calculation and anything else that is necessary and helpful to allow us to understand aspects of Reality. AboveAlpha
True but think about it. That is the same thing a con man does. He gain your confidence by telling you lies, then he modifies those lies as new evidence is introduced (ie as he gets caught in those lies). The reason for that in most cases that kind of claim is made is to anger you, lol. It can be an insult. Additionally, some may really believe science is a religion or to some science is similar to a religion. I could make religion out of science because not all religions rely on a deity. True in some cases science enhances faith, in my case without science I would still be an atheist. That is true, however faith is only one component of many that it takes to construct an religion. And that is precisely why I do not use it as the primary method to define reality. I wrote a thread called the anchors of reality where I compared science and religion and other disciplines that define truth and helps us model reality.We must have a model of reality because the true nature of the universe is so out of phase with us it would be impossible for us (our mind) to navigate through time. The trouble is that if a person uses science exclusively to define reality (ie science as a reality anchor), science by its very nature can change. So if a core truth of science is found after say 40 or 50 years to not be true the reality model of the person that uses science to define reality and truth is fraudulent and corrupted too! When fraud or mistakes or new evidence emerges and changes scientific claims and 'truths' so does the reality of the person that relies on science for answers, making what they thought was real and truth, far less than that. For that reason I choose religion as my primary anchor then science and other things~ just like my money is diversified so is my model of reality. I have a problem with even the above! I cant diversify my savings and on hand cash which total to...lets see...29.50...hmmmm'~ reva
Science does not change.....Theories change. Science is just a METHOD....and the method is always the same and if someone changes it then they are NOT using the scientific method. All the scientific method does is use a logic bases methodology to determine aspects of our reality to the best of our ability to do so. A Theory remains a Theory until sufficient amount of evidence is presented and when PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS can be used out of such a Theory and this demonstrates a PHYSICAL REALITY ocurring from such a Theory when put into use then that Theory for all intents and purposes is labeled a FACT. Such a FACT must be proven to the level of a Mathematical Proof and anyone claiming a Theory to be a Fact before such a level of proof exists is jumping the gun labeling such a Theory as fact. An example of a Theory having the sufficient PROOF to be labeled a FACT is the case with EVOLUTION. At one time Evolution was a Theory but back in 1999 when Biological Evolution was proven upon a Genetic Molecular/Atomic Level such a PROOF existed upon the same level as a MATHEMATICAL PROOF thus Evolution was labeled a FACT. AboveAlpha
The crime does not change the liar changes his story...you know better than to come off a lame rebuttal like that with me da ~ reva.....eh? Criminals have a MO. Many cons have been convicted if profiling the MO, ie their particular con game. If someone changes the criminals game, they are no longer using that particular con, because evidence against it, so it must be changed What does that have to do with what I said? You are actually agreeing with me. What follows is a ramble and free thought it will not change anything if you decide to skip the blue font. The hardest thing for my peers to understand about the way I look at the mess we call reality is that most if probably is NOT TRUE . Not true according to the 'real universe' ie reality sans time, because time is one of the many constructs our brain uses to navigate our time dependent universe/reality. Science allows us only nanoseconds of glimpses in our particular slice of time so as to anchor or plant our feet on something that seems real. Of course this is usually a mis-truth or even a lie of science and it can last a few min to forty years! Or we can take a chance and choose religion which may be the ultimate truth that never changes its core values. Jesus has always been Jesus and God is God despite some relatively primitive stabs at defining our creator. So UI choose God 80% and and science 20%. One of these days I hope to find 100% enlightenment and can believe in God with every fiber and every quantum process of my brain and soul. Even scientific facts can not be said to be 100% true and contain or could contain unknowable's! Therefore can be lies or mis-truths. EVEN MATHEMATICAL AXIOMS! The unequaled (some say his intellect was equal or superior to Einsteins) brilliant METAPHYSICS and Pro- THEIST Godel showed that little earth-shaker by his famous incompleteness theory. Google it. See above or Google 'incompleteness theory' and retry. Yes indeed, however calling Evolution of the etc etc as a 100% true and 100% fact is in fact (lol) perhaps the most awful of lie of the 20th century ! Some facets of Evolution (OTSBNS) is true, however is not complete. Therefore it may be wrong or wrong enough to be in error in some of its major predictions etc. reva
Rev.....your argument makes no sense and is illogical. You are basically saying that it is better to trust in Religious Beliefs which have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE AND ZERO PROOF to back them.....then to trust in Scientifically gained data. Rev...that's just NUTS! Evolution is a FACT. A person can actually SEE the evolutionary process happen with a cheap microscope....some prepared slides....some bleach and some sugar water.....an eye dropper....and $3 Sample Harvesting Tool....and an afternoon. For crying out loud why do you think there are strains of Bacteria that no longer are treatable with standard antibiotics? BECAUSE THEY EVOLVED!!! Please....do yourself a favor and don't argue against Evolution as it is a fact....we have Practical Applications such as Genetic Engineering as well as the Human Genome Mapping Project has provided CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE upon a Molecular/Atomic Level PROVING Evolution is a reality. When you attempt to argue what essentially is the same argument as a person saying 2 plus 2 is not 4.....well it is 4. AboveAlpha
