CaseS87
12-16-2006, 08:41 PM
let me preface this by saying that i am not highly educated in mathematics or physics, so this is baseless speculation and could be completely wrong for a simple reason. i am not presenting this as a hypothesis, because im sure somebody has thought about this before, i am asking why it is wrong.
as i understand it, one of the biggest problems with both black hole theory, and the big bang theory is the issue of the singularity. when an equation like this ends with an infinite answer, it is assumed to have a flaw. there apparently cannot be an object in our universe that is infinite small and infinitely dense. my question is, why not? why is it that we make this assumption even though we do not have a complete (not even close) understanding of the very small. why is it that is a fairly accepted idea that whatever is outside of our universe could extend into infinite, but when we reverse it, it is impossible that you cannot, for example, divide something in half forever?
i hope that made sense.
as i understand it, one of the biggest problems with both black hole theory, and the big bang theory is the issue of the singularity. when an equation like this ends with an infinite answer, it is assumed to have a flaw. there apparently cannot be an object in our universe that is infinite small and infinitely dense. my question is, why not? why is it that we make this assumption even though we do not have a complete (not even close) understanding of the very small. why is it that is a fairly accepted idea that whatever is outside of our universe could extend into infinite, but when we reverse it, it is impossible that you cannot, for example, divide something in half forever?
i hope that made sense.