Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2933 Jun 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>You need to prove your god, otherwise we atheists will think you're just a plain old cult of liars like every other dishnest belief system.
I don't want to change you, why would I?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2934 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
It does break down. That's why one of the experts in the field said "it breaks down".
They both break down.
Do you not get that a theory needs to work everywhere. At least that's what the experts claim. The lower class doesn't seem to care if it works at all.
Yes, we need a good, testable theory of quantum gravity. has anyone said anything different?

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity work incredibly well in every situation we have been able to test. Without relevant tests it is impossible to determine which of the proposed quantum theories of gravity are correct (if any).

Now, the simple fact that, in isolation, QM and GR give contradictory descriptions of the center of a black hole is not, in itself, reason to dispense with either one. The reason? We have no *data* from the center of any black hole. For that matter, we don't have any data from the event horizon of a black hole that is accurate enough to test any of the quantum theories of gravity.

Next, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a curved background spacetime (i.e, QM with GR and no quantum gravity) and get perfectly accurate answers for everything we have ever been able to test *and* obtain consistent descriptions of what happens at the event horizon of black holes. This technique has been done now for over 40 years and is a well-established test for any proposed quantum theory of gravity (since such a theory would have to reduce to both QM and GR in the limiting situations of each theory).

So, the situation is as follows:

1) In every situation in which we have actual physical data, both QM and GR work well.

2) QM with a background of GR works well even for black hole horizons

3) GR is a classical theory, and we know there needs to be a quantum theory of gravity, so GR will need to be changed to accommodate this.

4) Any new quantum theory of gravity will have to reduce to both QM and GR in the appropriate limits.

5) There are several proposed quantum theories of gravity (string theory, loop quantum gravity, non-commutative geometry, etc)

6) Without new physical data we cannot select between the proposed quantum theories of gravity.

Now, what, exactly, is your problem?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2935 Jun 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
I'm telling you what the "breakdown" is. At the event horizon space is curved infinitely and gravity become infinite.
Actually, this is wrong. At the event horizon, the curvature and gravity are perfectly finite. An astronaut falling into a black hole would have no real problems at the event horizon, especially that for a supermassive black-hole where the tidal forces are weak.

I tis at the *center* of a black-hole that there are problems. THAT is where the 'singularity' of GR is located.
In physics it is assumed infinities cannot exist. So in a BH that has a definite solar mass its event horizon's forces should be measurable.
But with the universe itself , it maybe infinite so that's not as big a problem as the event horizon of a BH. But it's because we are missing something here, and why poly and I both think we need to be able to probe them or create the conditions to solve the problem.
Especially for supermassive black-holes, where the tidal forces are small, QM with GR as a background seems to work perfectly well. This is how Hawking, Penrose and others have investigated the horizons theoretically.
But you cannot discount everything we DO Know, because there are some things we DON'T know , End of story, and now I will try to pretend you are anything but a science denying evolution refuting turbo religatard that try's to belittle all of science to keep your fantasy god from evaporating.
Exactly.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2936 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm telling you what the "breakdown" is"
Your last post stated there was no break down. Weird.
Aura did, indeed, describe the breakdown. You just don't understand enough to see that. The breakdown is that GR predicts an infinite curvature at the center of a black-hole. That is unphysical.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2937 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Actually, I believe in a great number of unprovable things."
Also the Big Bang, Evolution and Spontaneous self generating life.
But then an odd thing happens.
You draw a line in the sand and claim that God does not exist.
The Big Bang, as understood by scientists, is provable to the extent that any scientific theory is. It fits all the evidence we have.

A similar thing can be said about evolution.

Spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is, at this time, a hypothesis. But it is one that has a lot of backing in the chemistry of both life and the early earth.

If there was as much data supporting the existence of God as there is supporting abiogenesis, you would not find nearly as many atheists.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2938 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this is wrong. At the event horizon, the curvature and gravity are perfectly finite. An astronaut falling into a black hole would have no real problems at the event horizon, especially that for a supermassive black-hole where the tidal forces are weak.
I tis at the *center* of a black-hole that there are problems. THAT is where the 'singularity' of GR is located.
<quoted text>
Especially for supermassive black-holes, where the tidal forces are small, QM with GR as a background seems to work perfectly well. This is how Hawking, Penrose and others have investigated the horizons theoretically.
<quoted text>
Exactly.
"At the event horizon, the curvature and gravity are perfectly finite."

Past point of no return.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2939 Jun 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"At the event horizon, the curvature and gravity are perfectly finite."
Past point of no return.
Yes, that is also true, but it is not due to curvature effects. It is beyond the point of 'no return' because the escape velocity is more than the speed of light.

Exactly how much curvature there is at the event horizon depends on the size of the black-hole. Smaller ones have larger curvatures and larger black-holes have smaller curvatures. The same goes for tidal effects.

Another aspect of black-holes that is rather counter-intuitive is that the density of large black-holes is actually rather small. This is because the radius of the event horizon is proportional to the mass and the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius. So the density actually goes down as the square of the mass.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2940 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is also true, but it is not due to curvature effects. It is beyond the point of 'no return' because the escape velocity is more than the speed of light.
Exactly how much curvature there is at the event horizon depends on the size of the black-hole. Smaller ones have larger curvatures and larger black-holes have smaller curvatures. The same goes for tidal effects.
Another aspect of black-holes that is rather counter-intuitive is that the density of large black-holes is actually rather small. This is because the radius of the event horizon is proportional to the mass and the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius. So the density actually goes down as the square of the mass.
But are you using GR to predict the curvature or QM?
The argument here was GR specifically. New science has made many new hypothesis or theoretical predictions about beyond the EV, where classical physics suffer the so called "breakdown" we were addressing. But I was addressing the "breakdown" specifically as being lack of ability to measure accurately, which isn't a really breakdown but more of a lack of tool or yardstick to measure it.

But we also have a common problem when we talk black holes , complementarity.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#2941 Jun 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry it's a Ford.
Its so awesome fundies like you finally admit defeat.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2942 Jun 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> But are you using GR to predict the curvature or QM?
The argument here was GR specifically. New science has made many new hypothesis or theoretical predictions about beyond the EV, where classical physics suffer the so called "breakdown" we were addressing. But I was addressing the "breakdown" specifically as being lack of ability to measure accurately, which isn't a really breakdown but more of a lack of tool or yardstick to measure it.
But we also have a common problem when we talk black holes , complementarity.
I am talking about GR specifically. There is no reason to think that QM will make the non-singularity into a singularity.

The curvature at the event horizon is finite. If you use the Schwarzschild coordinates, there is a coordinate singularity there, but that can be removed by using a different coordinate system. The Kruskal coordinates are good for this reason (and others). The curvature goes infinite at the *center* of a black-hole in GR, but not at the event horizon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%9...

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2943 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am talking about GR specifically. There is no reason to think that QM will make the non-singularity into a singularity.
The curvature at the event horizon is finite. If you use the Schwarzschild coordinates, there is a coordinate singularity there, but that can be removed by using a different coordinate system. The Kruskal coordinates are good for this reason (and others). The curvature goes infinite at the *center* of a black-hole in GR, but not at the event horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%9...
Now define the distance between the point of no return (event horizon) and the center of an singularity.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2944 Jun 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Now define the distance between the point of no return (event horizon) and the center of an singularity.
I need to refine this I do not mean the Schwarzschild radius I mean the actual space/time difference between points.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2945 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, we need a good, testable theory of quantum gravity. has anyone said anything different?

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity work incredibly well in every situation we have been able to test. Without relevant tests it is impossible to determine which of the proposed quantum theories of gravity are correct (if any).

Now, the simple fact that, in isolation, QM and GR give contradictory descriptions of the center of a black hole is not, in itself, reason to dispense with either one. The reason? We have no *data* from the center of any black hole. For that matter, we don't have any data from the event horizon of a black hole that is accurate enough to test any of the quantum theories of gravity.

Next, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a curved background spacetime (i.e, QM with GR and no quantum gravity) and get perfectly accurate answers for everything we have ever been able to test *and* obtain consistent descriptions of what happens at the event horizon of black holes. This technique has been done now for over 40 years and is a well-established test for any proposed quantum theory of gravity (since such a theory would have to reduce to both QM and GR in the limiting situations of each theory).

So, the situation is as follows:

1) In every situation in which we have actual physical data, both QM and GR work well.

2) QM with a background of GR works well even for black hole horizons

3) GR is a classical theory, and we know there needs to be a quantum theory of gravity, so GR will need to be changed to accommodate this.

4) Any new quantum theory of gravity will have to reduce to both QM and GR in the appropriate limits.

5) There are several proposed quantum theories of gravity (string theory, loop quantum gravity, non-commutative geometry, etc)

6) Without new physical data we cannot select between the proposed quantum theories of gravity.

Now, what, exactly, is your problem?
"Now, what, exactly, is your problem?"

My wife, but that's off topic.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2946 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Aura did, indeed, describe the breakdown. You just don't understand enough to see that. The breakdown is that GR predicts an infinite curvature at the center of a black-hole. That is unphysical.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You got it wrong though. It doesn't break down it just can't measure the opposing forces accurately. With the early universe it isn't so much a problem as it is with a BH.
"Aura did, indeed, describe the breakdown"

"QUOTE who="Aura Mytha"]<quoted text>You got it wrong though. It doesn't break down"

He did? Doesn't look like it.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2947 Jun 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The Big Bang, as understood by scientists, is provable to the extent that any scientific theory is. It fits all the evidence we have.

A similar thing can be said about evolution.

Spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is, at this time, a hypothesis. But it is one that has a lot of backing in the chemistry of both life and the early earth.

If there was as much data supporting the existence of God as there is supporting abiogenesis, you would not find nearly as many atheists.
I see. You like your 3 myths over our one God. Got it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2948 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. You like your 3 myths over our one God. Got it.
When you are brave enough to stop lying about a god you have no proof of, you will become a better, more moral person.

Atheism naturally collects people who are incapable of lying to themselves.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2949 Jun 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Now define the distance between the point of no return (event horizon) and the center of an singularity.
There are several problems with this. The first is the question of which reference frame you want to use. The distance will be different for different frames. Alternatively, you can ask about the spacetime separation, but that runs into issues because the Schwarzschild radius is a *time* coordinate inside the black-hole and the 'time' coordinate is spatial.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2950 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. You like your 3 myths over our one God. Got it.
I prefer scientific evidence to supernatural myths. The evidence in favor of the Big Bang and evolution is incredibly strong if you actually use the scientific theories as oppose to popular science treatments. Abiogenesis is much less demonstrable at this time, but the majority of the evidence still supports it.In no way is supernatural intervention required for any of this.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2951 Jun 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now, what, exactly, is your problem?"
My wife, but that's off topic.
And you refuse to address the actual question.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2952 Jun 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are several problems with this. The first is the question of which reference frame you want to use. The distance will be different for different frames. Alternatively, you can ask about the spacetime separation, but that runs into issues because the Schwarzschild radius is a *time* coordinate inside the black-hole and the 'time' coordinate is spatial.
There are two views , contradictory but both the truth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr dollarsbill 6,053
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr replaytime 93,390
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 12 hr Eagle 12 - 80
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11