No not at all actually, because I don' t treat science tribally.
I don't care who published something because science is about the data not the source - so no, appeals to authority do not do it for me, and conversely I do not feel aggrieved when someone appears to say something that might contradict someone I hold in esteem - because that is trust me bro science, and not how it should be.
If I were you I would work to look at the substance of discourse and not look for reasons to emotionally charge it like that.
I think what I said was completely valid given what was presented - but I wasn't sure which is why I asked. It actually -WAS- an invitation for you to correct my assumption since it was based only on existing data and reason.
So let me try to reply to my original message on your behalf:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NotLightspeed
Yeah when you put it that way it does seem odd to say it doesn't exist - but it turns out (since you watched the video you know this) that he is only saying that they don't physically exist - which actually agrees with the definition of a singularity as a mathematical limit - i.e. he is agreeing with what you said, that there is no reason to extend the mathematical anomaly to a physically existing one.
But yeah - science journalism - they NEVER embellish anything, right?
|