Nonsense.
First, you must understand the relationship between a mathematical concept and the physical phenomenon it is supposed to portray. For instance, a negative quantity in a mathematical equation corresponds to a particular direction of say, a vector quantity. Changing mathematical sign conventions do not change the scientific law in any fundamental way. Are you with me so far?
The physical interpretation of a singularity - the situation when mathematical equations for the gravitational field becomes infinite - is a phenomenon where ALL RATIONAL PHYSICAL LAWS BREAK DOWN. And when the laws of physics no longer applies (having no physically measureable quantity) only means that such a PHENOMENON IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC FIELD OF INQUIRY.
Now, if the PHYSICAL LAWS NO LONGER APPLY, how in hell can you assert that the conservation of mass and energy is being followed, eh? And is not that the jist of all this argument - THAT FROM A PHYSICALLY IRRATIONAL SINGULARITY TO A PHYSICALLY RATIONAL UNIVERSE NECESSARILY DESCRIBES AN ACT OF CREATION.
I did no such thing. You were the one who equated lorentz contraction to length contraction - which is obviously false to anyone who is familiar with the mathematical derivation of the lorentz factor.
LMAO.
Such verbosity to cover an obvious lapse in facts. The lorentz factor describes the length contraction in SPECIAL RELATIVITY. If you are talking about gravity and the curvature of space, then that is clearly about GENERAL RELATIVITY, hence does not involve LORENTZ ANYTHING.
However, the phenomenon of length contraction occurs in both special and general relativity (using DIFFERENT derivations and mathematical expression) according to the equivalence principle.
Good god, you are ignorant!
2.54 cm = 1 inch - refers to the SAME PHYSICAL LENGTH even if they are 'numerically' different. That is the essence of conversion factors, isn't it? That no matter what unit measure you are inclined to use, you will arrive at something that is EXACTLY THE SAME.
LMAO till I pee in my pants.
What ignorant nonsense.
Particles, whether quanta of energy or matter behaves according to relativity. What the absence of a unifying theory simply means is that gravity does not exist as quanta. Something that does not exist as quanta couldn't possibly follow quantum mechanical laws, could it? That does not mean that PARTICLES are NOT subject to the laws described in general relativity.
I do not presume to call you anything other than what your posts logically suggests. Quite frankly, it suggests an utter ignorance on the present subject matter.
