[JumpCrisscross]

> Singularity is not possible at 0G, isn't?

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.

[oneshtein]

Singularity means that at least some barions will be at the same place in the same time, which against nature of fermions.

Moreover, it hard to imagine that Higgs bosons will act at same place and time with same effectiveness.

So, I cannot believe in a singularity unless it will be physically demonstrated.

[mr_mitm]

Sounds like you mean fermions. Bosons absolutely can occupy the same quantum states, look up the Bose-Einstein condensate.

Also, no one serious claims that singularities exist when taking quantum mechanics into account. It's completely unknown territory.

[JumpCrisscross]

They’re mixing up barycentres [1] and baryons [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter_(astronomy)

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon

[oneshtein]

Anyway, I propose to dig tunnel to the center of the Moon with plasma cutters and make a lab there. IMHO, the result will be worthy.

As non-native speaker, it's hard for me to argue with native speakers (especially when I sick, tired, in army, and at war), and I refuse to use AI to translate, because I suspect that such messages will be automatically rejected by future archivists.

[nathan_compton]

Why not dig a tunnel to the center of a smaller body like an asteroid?

I think you're talking about the fact that the gravitational force inside of a symmetric shell of matter is zero. But the potential is not, as can be (and has been, I believe) demonstrated quite easily by just putting a clock in a hole and measuring the time dilation relative to the surface.

Sorry you are at war. Good luck.

[oneshtein]

AFAIK, asteroids are nor solid, nor round. Moreover, their gravitational field is very low already. They are much further than Moon, so it will be harder to communicate.

Moreover, the tunnel itself will create much stronger impact on results on asteroid, than on Moon. If we will dig ∅1 cm tunnel to the center of the Moon, it missing volume will be pretty insignificant and easy to compensate, e.g. with lead plug.

Moreover, big and rigid Moon will be much better antenna for lot of experiments, than small and soft asteroid.

[api]

If they don’t doesn’t that imply that a superextremal black hole could exist since there would be no naked singularity whose observation is forbidden by any cosmic censorship hypothesis?

[oneshtein]

I wrote «barions», but yes, you are right, I meant «fermions». Fixed.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.)

[api]

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.

[cyberax]

Matter falling into a singularity reaches it in a fairly short time, according to the falling observer's clock.

It's just that the _light_ that this observer emits takes infinitely long to reach observers outside of the singularity.