Hi, i'm no expert at physics, so please forgive any blatant errors my following statement may contain. I've been discussing with others that the definition of a singularity is wrong and needs to be redefined. The reasons are as follows.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

By definition the singularity was of zero volume, had zero mass but infinite gravity. The arguements for this so far have been due to gravitational calculations.

1) gravity = weight / mass

2) Fg = G x mA x mB / r x r

Fg = gravitational force between 2 objects

G = gravitational constant

mA + mB = mass of object A + mass of object B

r = distance between the 2 objects in metres.

Now so far i am told infinite gravity can occur when there is no distance between matter, as essentially anything / 0 = infinity.

I have argued that gravitational formulae cannot be used for zero values, as that would imply wherever nothing is, by calculation, there is infinite gravity. this cannot be as it would not allow the gravity fields of our space - time to exist, and matter would be evenly distributed across infinity, as infinite gravity would be constant across infinity.

I have suggested that a singularity had mass and volume and existed in space - time(perhaps somewhat distorted due to it's incredible gravity field, but space - time of a kind).

I have also suggested that an external force not an internal one caused it to seperate, or a combination of internal / external forces were the cause.

I have only been told i am wrong to all of this, so i thought i'd ask the experts, so please someone, please agree with me, or explain in terms i will understand ie; if you use equations explain each part. I feel i've missed something fundamental as i've been looking into singularities and most attempted explanations break down because the usual laws of physics did not apply, but what if they did??

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is The Definition Of A Singularity Incorrect?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Definition Singularity Incorrect | Date |
---|---|

A Definition of [itex]\sigma_8[/itex] | Aug 25, 2017 |

B Definition of unshifted spectral lines? | May 15, 2017 |

Definition of Energy in Friedmann equations? | Nov 13, 2015 |

A Definition of hypersurface orthogonal | Oct 9, 2013 |

Singularity (Wikipedia and Mathworld definitions) | Aug 26, 2007 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**