It’s already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.
Yeah. But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.
Not that singularities are unknown to us and we’d face something unexpected, that’s obvious. What isn’t is that we might face a completely new set of physics in each different black hole.
Edit perhaps the quote was a bit on the longer side so:
Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.
But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.
It’s beyond the event horizon. It’s unknown by definition. They restated the definition.
Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.
And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there’s something unknown inside an object that’s defined to be something that is unknown.
Using two paragraphs to say there’s unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.
Again if this was an essay titled, “A beginners guide to Black Holes.”, it would have been perfectly fine.
They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.
It does.
You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Yeah. But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.
Not that singularities are unknown to us and we’d face something unexpected, that’s obvious. What isn’t is that we might face a completely new set of physics in each different black hole.
Edit perhaps the quote was a bit on the longer side so:
It’s beyond the event horizon. It’s unknown by definition. They restated the definition.
And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there’s something unknown inside an object that’s defined to be something that is unknown.
Using two paragraphs to say there’s unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.
Again if this was an essay titled, “A beginners guide to Black Holes.”, it would have been perfectly fine.
No, they didn’t. Your reading comprehension just blows.
They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I’m not here to prove their ideas, so getting mad at me for you disagreeing with them is… juvenile.
I’m not “defensive” in the slightest. You just feel attacked, so you’re projecting that, despite my comments being extremely neutral.
You claimed I had a reading comprehension problem. That’s a personal attack.
I did not.
I commented on your reading comprehension, and not even in as surly a tone as you had been using at me.
You’re directing anger towards me for them having sensationalism in their piece? How does that make sense?
I’m merely pointing what the text states.
I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.
It does.
You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.