🚀 go-pugleaf

shrikanthas@yahoo.com (Shrikantha S. Shastry) wrote in message news:<92a87ac5.0304070224.7bdfe213@posting.google.com>...
> selflab@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.0304061314.4bf383f8@posting.google.com>...
> > shrikanthas@yahoo.com (Shrikantha S. Shastry) wrote in message news:<92a87ac5.0304020124.369ed6bf@posting.google.com>...
> > > selflab@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.0304011315.55fbd920@posting.google.com>...
> > > > shrikanthas@yahoo.com (Shrikantha S. Shastry) wrote in message news:<92a87ac5.0303292225.2f8fc42f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> 
> Well, again, my response was a general statement about the nature of
> the universe. And so, all scientific conclusions are subject to the
> illusory nature of the universe.
> 
> Now, how can there be singularities when all sinularities emerge at
> zero? In other words, all singularities happen to be the same
> singularity.
> 
> And how come that singularity is absent in nature? Is it
> mathematically sound to neglect it, when outcomes are heavily
> dependent on mathematical workout. Why this selective neglect? On the
> contrary, singularity is basically important, as shown in my link
> above, in relation to the observed universe.
> 
> It is this attitude of ignoring the essential singularity which has
> hampered progress in science. The limited scope of science is
> therefore artificial and its scope can be enlarged if singularity is
> identified as it is.
> 
> And when the inherent singularity is recognised as the reality, its
> observable universe turns out to be illusory. And so, the consequences
> are inevitable. Is it the fear of these consequences which prevents
> the acceptance of singularity? If one is looking for truth, then the
> universe can only be known as it is, not as one wants.

I see, in the problem of singularity you understand only a nice word
and nothing more. No one ignores the singularity, as you would like to
imagine. There exists even a theory of singularities by N.P. Vekua:
for example, his "Systems of singular integral equations and some
boundary problems". The scientists treat them as an unavoidable
consequence of our limited mathematical scope of modelling. Should you
be more attentive when listening your lectures on physics, you would
distinguish the concepts of surrounding reality and our images of this
reality. And if you yourself whenever modelled some physical
processes, you would know that the singularities disappear, when we
introduce the finite size of a material body, the medium viscosity,
resistance etc. But with it the complicacy of model description
sharply increases. In most cases such complicacy doesn't lead to
essential refinement of results. This is why there appear the point
masses, charges, infinitely thin threads of vortexes and so on. Though
this does not mean a least that it is basically impossible to take the
mentioned factors into account. It's possible, and in many cases we
account them in our problems. The singularities naturally disappear,
there remain only the extremums with finite amplitudes. I already
wrote you it, and this is not my fault that you are simply deaf. I
understand the reason of your deafness, however this does not win you
an honour.

It seems, you muddled up the newsgroups. People seeking for new
religion would listen you open-mouthed and understand. They like to
play words senselessly with a very clever faces. Sorry, as for me, it
is boresome to read such ambiguous nonsense. There is nothing
constructive. The more, I don't see, how this all concerns the subject
of paper presented here.

Sergey.