To the extent anything in this discussion can be absolute, it's the wrongness of your statement. Nothing about singularities has been empirically proven (or disproven).
You don’t seem to be new around here, so this quote from this forum’s guidelines is more for the benefit of others
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
But that is not name-calling. In your words, that is snark. Are all snarky comments also name calling now, and vice-versa? One could argue that the comment stands factually with just the first sentence, too. It’s strong, yes, but very different from name calling. I think it’s a valuable tool in learning in that it [snark] reminds us to choose our words very carefully, and we all need reminders of that sometimes. Also…
There are plenty of various oblique ways of expressing similar sentiment that can hurt an educated person much more than name-calling (which, conversely, can be more amusing than anything). Digs like “the wrongness of your statement” are definitely far on relevant spectrum.
Therefore, I believe the rules against name-calling are not literal. As you noticed, attempting to restrict discussion more strictly would make it bland, but on the other hand when it comes to literal name-calling in a civilized discussion it’s way past all limits.
Tangentially, I was surprised to learn recently that merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary and perceived as somewhat confrontational. Haven’t confirmed it from multiple sources (not sure how to search for), but in hindsight it makes sense: the mood changes, and the argument can quickly devolve thereafter. I suspect it might be something from psychotherapy practice.
> merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary
Not necessarily unnecessary, but necessarily personal.
If I changed the “your” in the top comment to “this,” I think it would better communicate both my issue and reasonable irritation with the comment I was responding to. At the same time there is another commenter in this thread who refused to back down, and at that point a “you’re bordering on trolling” seems appropriate. It is confrontational, but not unnecessarily so.
One divided by zero is a singularity. Singularity, mathematically speaking, means your math breaks. Calculus gets around this problem with limits. But there is absolutely nothing about physics that prohibits singularities, even gravitational singularities, in a zero G space because by definition a gravitational singularity per se has an undefined G.
> Singularity means that at least some barions will be at the same place in the same time
The singularity in a black hole has no conception of baryons, hadrons or fermions. Those are quantum particles. The singularity is in general relativity.
Also, 0G doesn’t mean zero gravity. An object in freefall is still subject to gravity despite experiencing 0G.
(Side note: fermions can occupy the same place at the same time. They cannot occupy the same state. This seeming mathematic fuckery goes on to describe many real-world weirdos like neutron stars.)
If matter falling into a singularity never reaches it because time slows down infinitely as you approach, wouldn’t this be a physical representation of a mathematical limit from calculus? The actual literal 1d singularity never forms but it is approached infinitely close.