1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

As for you opinion of me and my ego, you don't know me do you. I happily don't give a fk about your opinion of me and my ego is only dependent on how lucky i am to be alive. I value scratching my butt equal to any concept of universal theory. Please don't try and imply different.

Let's be crystal clear about this. We don't attack people here, we attack ideas to see if they're strong enough.

I gave no opinion about you or your ego. When I said, "It makes you feel pretty special", I was not only paraphrasing what you've already said, I was speaking from experience. I joined this site more than 20 years ago chasing an idea I had about String Theory, after reading some Michio Kaku. I was not a STEM student in school, so it was a pleasant surprise when I thought I could decipher cutting edge physics without having studied its foundation.

Almost immediately some early members came to my rescue, and instead of rejecting their advice, I studied their explanations. I read the threads they started. I asked questions and got great answers, which helped me with reasoning skills and researching the next steps. I still wish I'd had a better background in science, or had the time in life to go back to school. I found that learning what others have rigorously tested is more beneficial to me and less intellectually dishonest than criticizing what I imagine to be wrong with something I've only studied as an amateur. Does that make sense?

I'm so sorry if all this seems harsh. I want to encourage your interest in science, and science is all about the methodology you use to reach your conclusions. They have to be good enough to base future predictions on, otherwise it's all sand castles.

Ok, and I have already taken that on board within the first few posts which I think seems to have been missed by you. Sorry if that im my bad communication. Since then I have been busy with RL issues and have only reacted to posts. You have been here 20years, i have been here a few days. I have looked at some texts and teaching tools and realise how far from being able to formulate what I need to. I hope you don't expect me to learn it all in 1 night? No i didn’t think so. So kindly stop repeating yourself so i wont keep repeating myself.

Even understanding you position on my position, it still wont change my intuition. I just hope in the future I will be able to post a beautiful set of math, with a air tight hypothesis and a concrete way to test and prove it correct. Till then I'm still gonna be able to trust my gut. You don’t like that, it frustrates you, i don’t know but neither is that relevant.

The help you have given me is point towards some sources of information for me to learn and when I have I can learn more. In the mean time chill out, and if you really want to help beyond this (in no way do i expect you to), maybe, just maybe you might have some understanding of current theory development that you could say might help once I get up to speed, or is even tackling the same problem in some way.

I would obviously point at string theory and see a lot of potential for this type of enquiry even though i still see branes, fields and strings differently. And yes I probably don't know the subject enough to dismiss it …. so i don’t.

So while you might feel the need to speak up in fear I have not listened, better you listen yourself, or just don't bother as you do come across antagonistic.

7 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

No they are not more coherent thoughts, they are the same, it is just I am learning how to discuss them with fanatics of the scientific method (ps joking), but tbh you guys do sound a touch like the religious fanatics (not joking) but unlike them your fanaticism is based on unwavering logic and reason. My world embraces both, and the truth is often found somewhere between two opposing factions that are so well entrenched. You wont like that will you

Flawed logic and reason can be countered with better logic and reason, and the “fanaticism” is based on the fact that science actually works. Or did the device and infrastructure you’re using to post your discussion appear from divine intervention?

Science is about what can be demonstrated to be true, not what you believe to be true. The former leaves the door open open to better evidence and explanations. The latter, not so much.

Lol, you guyz kill me. Did you see the brackets (joke), did you read the part fanaticism based of unwavering logic and reason. Isn't that what a scientist should do? I am starting to think i was wrong.

Hands up who suffers from aphantasia.

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Did you see the brackets (joke)

Yes. I responded to the comment where you wrote “not joking”

Believe it or not, Dragon, you are not the only one on this forum.
Others ( myself included ) come here to learn, and if knowledgeable people don't push back against wrong/confused/inconsistent ideas with the accepted science then those who are trying to learn are done a disservice.
You may be comfortable going with your gut instinct, and belief in your imagination, but that is NOT science, and this is a science forum.
Don't take it personal.

No. Im not taking it personally. I saying you are echoing each other and repeating the same echo. Technically you are creating an interference pattern as the waves of repetition overlap. This is coming across bad and would have the opposite effect to what is meant to be going on here. I am trying to help you by pointing this out as you are reporting you are trying to help me understand the nature of this forum, of science and discussion here. Got it?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Science is about what can be demonstrated to be true, not what you believe to be true. The former leaves the door open open to better evidence and explanations.

Oo didn't know you could highlight some text and quote like that. My intuition told me i could. The scientist in me thought try it ‘Experiment’ and i learned i could. As this demonstrates, intuition helps don’t it. If it was just about discussing what we have already observed, I would just ask AI and not ask people in a science forum. That is a compliment by the way.

Gotta ask something, is it scientific to totally dismiss something that can’t be proved yet? ie, im not religious and dont believe in any deities but I cant say they don't exist. Is ruling out singularities and infinites the same. It is not scientific to say they ARE fairytales etc, just we can only speculate on them? Not that the discussion of singularities or infinities is a topic you can discus in THIS forum group called speculation because you have rules, but 90% of this thread has not been about them, it has been about repeating the same message that has already been accepted.

10 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Hands up who suffers from aphantasia.

I don't understand this question.

What does it have to do with the topic ?

You have stated that you are guessing (intuition) where mathematics failed.

You have also stated that you are not comfortable with mathematics, but wish to learn more.

As I see it this has led to a situation where you don't know enough mathematics to actually discern whether and where mathematics has failed.

Take a 'singularity'.

A very simple example is density.

Consider a homogeneous object such a s a ball bearing or a billiard ball.

Density is defined as mass divided by volume.

Now ask the question what is the density at any individual point in that ball ?

An individual point has exactly zero volume.

Yet we are taught from a very young age in mathematics that you cannot divide by zero.

So what is the density at that point ?

Ha smathematics failed ?

Is there a singularity at that point ?

Yet every day folks all over the world handle this mathematical conundrum ( that stopped the ancient greek philosophers in their tracks) without thinking about it

because mathematics that you don't know about, can handle the situation with ease.

I have already offered you another example ( 1 + 1 not equal to 2) that you have consistently ignored.

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have already offered you another example ( 1 + 1 not equal to 2) that you have consistently ignored.

No i have not ignored it. I have not made reference to it as i don't think i am ready to. But if you insist i will intuitively have a stab at it.

1+1 is not 2 can probably be wrong in cases where 1 is an exact figure but in reality this is rarely (if ever the case) therefore 1+1 is unlikely to never equal an exact two which is itself unable to be exact.

1+1 is 11, or in binary is 3

I think this type of math is useful in science such as with a black body where emitting infinite ulta violet light as 1 there is no math able to cope with infinites, or at least a technology capable of handling them. The universe gets an advantage here, it had shit loads of infinity to do these calculations for it. Anyhoo, i think to resolve the black body theory, guy called Plank devised the unit used in quantum physics and is represented by or is a photon. So the math was able to work. But 1 the black body is a made up concept that doesn't exist as it was a result of the math breaking down with infinities. I have pondered this before, and the only black body i am familiar with is a black hole, but we could never know if a black hole emits infinite ulta violet light as that light can never escape the black hole. The only energy that could is hawkin radiation from what i have gathered but again no little of the math. Once again though this points to the math being used in science is an altered form designed to limit the math to make it handleable. It does not refute the original math but it does hold off the need to deal with infinities and singularities until we can formulate something else to describe the next level, or find a system able to deal with infinities.

22 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I have pondered this before, and the only black body i am familiar with is a black hole, b

Perfect black body do not exist in nature, we have some close approximations.

26 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

with infinities and singularities until we can formulate something else to describe the next level

Don't forget that these singularities occur when we wind the clock back on the universe in a classical sense.

You may find this useful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

From @MigL previously

"the time 're-winding' of the universe back to a singular state, is a purely classical exercise, and fails for the same reasons as the gravitational collapse of a star to a singularity in a Black Hole. When you get close to singular states, Quantum effects become non-trivial.

General Relativity itself, being strictly classical, is not applicable in that domain; that is what the singular state, with its attendant infinities, signifies."

Edited September 20Sep 20 by pinball1970
Tag

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

No. Im not taking it personally. I saying you are echoing each other and repeating the same echo. Technically you are creating an interference pattern as the waves of repetition overlap. This is coming across bad and would have the opposite effect to what is meant to be going on here. I am trying to help you by pointing this out as you are reporting you are trying to help me understand the nature of this forum, of science and discussion here. Got it?

Oo didn't know you could highlight some text and quote like that. My intuition told me i could. The scientist in me thought try it ‘Experiment’ and i learned i could. As this demonstrates, intuition helps don’t it. If it was just about discussing what we have already observed, I would just ask AI and not ask people in a science forum. That is a compliment by the way.

Gotta ask something, is it scientific to totally dismiss something that can’t be proved yet? ie, im not religious and dont believe in any deities but I cant say they don't exist. Is ruling out singularities and infinites the same. It is not scientific to say they ARE fairytales etc, just we can only speculate on them? Not that the discussion of singularities or infinities is a topic you can discus in THIS forum group called speculation because you have rules, but 90% of this thread has not been about them, it has been about repeating the same message that has already been accepted.

Intuition helps, certainly. However the big piece you seem to miss is the need to test intuition by observation, to see if one’s intuition successfully withstands contact with reality. Without that, you are just making shit up - and that is not science. You may not need to make observations yourself, but you do need your intuitive idea to make predictions of what we should be able to observe, so that the idea can be tested.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by exchemist

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Take a 'singularity'.

A very simple example is density.

Consider a homogeneous object such a s a ball bearing or a billiard ball.

Density is defined as mass divided by volume.

Now ask the question what is the density at any individual point in that ball ?

An individual point has exactly zero volume.

Yet we are taught from a very young age in mathematics that you cannot divide by zero.

So what is the density at that point ?

Ha smathematics failed ?

Is there a singularity at that point ?

To you is there a singularity, no, to me possibly. Why possibly, because like in string theory the point 0 is where the other 7 dimensions (if i understand it right) exist that described in the theory, which again is (could be, or are to me) an approximation of the reality.

Maybe you guyz are getting hung up on i use terms such as ‘is’, instead of could should or would? Maybe I should start a new conversation reframing the question. ‘Can you help device a mathematical system to cope with infinities and singularities as if they are real natural states of an infinite universe and not the breakdown of math’? That way you can say, no we can’t, we are not equipped, able or willing to do that sorry. At which point I will say, sorry to bother you and go until I can think of a something you can help with, but i doubt it will be in speculation.

To the observer, a picture is a pattern of light that reaches their eye made up of waves of light that (or is it particles or both). This is an abstract thing as far as the light and universe are concerned, ie they dont/cant be concerned, but to us they still make up the picture. We need pictures such as the math describing the light. Accepting that what is passing between the surface of the picture (be it screen or reflection of light) are just waves does not change the validity of the image to the viewer, so both are true. My idea of singularities does NOT refute science as it has occurred, the observation or law and rules, it just defines them as the pictures used to understand the light of the universe.

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

the big piece you seem to miss is the need to test intuition by observation, to see if one’s intuition successfully withstands contact with reality. Without that, you are just making shit up - and that is not science.

Yes but is that what I am doing. My intuition is saying it does successfully withstand contact with reality, i need to find a way to prove it. Thus I came here.

45 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

Thanks for the Pinball, will check it out asap.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Once again you have ignored the questions I did ask

Yet offered answers to questions I did not ask.

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

No i have not ignored it. I have not made reference to it as i don't think i am ready to. But if you insist i will intuitively have a stab at it.

1+1 is not 2 can probably be wrong in cases where 1 is an exact figure but in reality this is rarely (if ever the case) therefore 1+1 is unlikely to never equal an exact two which is itself unable to be exact.

1+1 is 11, or in binary is 3

I think this type of math is useful in science such as with a black body where emitting infinite ulta violet light as 1 there is no math able to cope with infinites, or at least a technology capable of handling them. The universe gets an advantage here, it had shit loads of infinity to do these calculations for it. Anyhoo, i think to resolve the black body theory, guy called Plank devised the unit used in quantum physics and is represented by or is a photon. So the math was able to work. But 1 the black body is a made up concept that doesn't exist as it was a result of the math breaking down with infinities. I have pondered this before, and the only black body i am familiar with is a black hole, but we could never know if a black hole emits infinite ulta violet light as that light can never escape the black hole. The only energy that could is hawkin radiation from what i have gathered but again no little of the math. Once again though this points to the math being used in science is an altered form designed to limit the math to make it handleable. It does not refute the original math but it does hold off the need to deal with infinities and singularities until we can formulate something else to describe the next level, or find a system able to deal with infinities.

Nowhere did I ask you to explain the mathematical reason why 1 + 1 may not equal 2.

What I did say backalong was

On 9/16/2025 at 9:03 PM, studiot said:

simply you only have to.... ask.

Instead of asking 'what do I mean ?' or 'how could that be ?' or somesuch

You chose to not only preach your guess to me but to challenge my statement as well, without the knowledge of what I was referring to.

This is what several other members have been cautioning against.

As English is my first language I put a question mark at the end of any question I (unless I forget)

and I have asked now on several occasions for clarification of one of your statements. for instance the one you ignored in your last response.

.

By contrast I cannot recall any time you have actually asked a question of one of mine.

Yes your guess would have some merit if we were talking about probability or accuracy but I was not.

The answer I was thinking about is 1 + 1 = 1.

The electronic chip I was referring to (although the mathematical process can also be implemented in other ways) is called an AND gate.

Have you heard of Truth Tables ?

Yet again you refer to singularities and infinites indiscriminately.

They are not the same, which perhaps is why they have different names,

It is true that an infinity is one way for a singularity to occur.

But there are many more types of singularity that have nothing to do with infinity.

Further your statement that maths cannot handle infinity (or singularity) is just plain wrong, but I will excuse you since you need more knowledge.

Once again

On 9/16/2025 at 9:03 PM, studiot said:

simply you only have to.... ask.

58 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

Had a quick look. Not drilled into it so this might be a twist of what it meant to say but one thing pops out

“Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe…”

So maybe potential this might be something to build on, incorporate etc.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Once again you have ignored the questions I did ask

Yet offered answers to questions I did not ask.

Nowhere did I ask you to explain the mathematical reason why 1 + 1 may not equal 2.

What I did say backalong was

Instead of asking 'what do I mean ?' or 'how could that be ?' or somesuch

You chose to not only preach your guess to me but to challenge my statement as well, without the knowledge of what I was referring to.

This is what several other members have been cautioning against.

As English is my first language I put a question mark at the end of any question I (unless I forget)

and I have asked now on several occasions for clarification of one of your statements. for instance the one you ignored in your last response.

.

By contrast I cannot recall any time you have actually asked a question of one of mine.

Yes your guess would have some merit if we were talking about probability or accuracy but I was not.

The answer I was thinking about is 1 + 1 = 1.

The electronic chip I was referring to (although the mathematical process can also be implemented in other ways) is called an AND gate.

Have you heard of Truth Tables ?

Yet again you refer to singularities and infinites indiscriminately.

They are not the same, which perhaps is why they have different names,

It is true that an infinity is one way for a singularity to occur.

But there are many more types of singularity that have nothing to do with infinity.

Further your statement that maths cannot handle infinity (or singularity) is just plain wrong, but I will excuse you since you need more knowledge.

Once again

And once again you seem to want to make something from this. If you want to offer up something constructive just do it. Im not gonna pander to asking what does that mean. Your 1+1=whatever was a pathetic attempt at questioning my intentions and implying I am doing something i am not. Like saying i think i am like Einstien, i did not, saying i have brought Buddism into this as some validation of my idea, i did not. These were examples to try to ask you to try to understand something, but you are wrapped up in trying to make your point, it is not constructive in any way now apart from to add pointless points to your account. Something i dont care about, -9 i think im at, please get me to the lowest - on the forum, still be in the top 8% of all members.

I think I have said coming here was to question my idea, not to force it on anyone as fact. Everything in my original post was meant as a question. If this is the cause of the confusion, i thought i had explained this already. So everything in this conversation by me, that is to do with singularities and infinites are questions. Everything else about why i am here, what i am trying to achieve etc is a waste of time.

If you offer something up i don't understand i will let you know, and either go away (on the point) till i do or ask for clarification. I do not expect your help, nor do i think you are here for my benefit and pander to me. So offer up info you think is relevant. If you don't want to go into details to explain because of my ignorance just say ‘i wont engage on this any more till you prove you understand’.

3 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Gotta ask something, is it scientific to totally dismiss something that can’t be proved yet? ie, im not religious and dont believe in any deities but I cant say they don't exist

The scientifically accurate statement is that there’s no evidence that they exist. (evidence in the scientific sense) To paraphrase Laplace, we have no need for that hypothesis - deities add nothing, as anything ascribed to them would be ad hoc. Saying whether deities exist is purely a matter of belief.

57 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

Had a quick look. Not drilled into it so this might be a twist of what it meant to say but one thing pops out
“Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe…”
So maybe potential this might be something to build on, incorporate etc.

This is exactly what we are talking about ...
Hawking and Penrose formulated these theorems based solely on GR, which is strictly classical.
We know, based on a century of observations/experiments, that 'reality' is NOT classical, and a strictly classical model would invariably fail when quantum effects become non-trivial.
So none of us would propose to incorporate H-P singularity theorems into a theory of Quantum Gravity.
Your 'gut instinct', and imagination, seems unconstrained by such considerations, however, because you lack a deep enough understanding of QM.

Maybe concentrate on deepening your understanding, before proposing ideas for models at the forefront of scientific research.
The deep end of the pool is meant for people who know how to swim.

What i have learned from studiot on topic…

Axioms in Mathematics vs. Principles in Science

Axioms in Mathematics are foundational, self-evident truths that are assumed without proof. They are the starting points from which all other theorems are logically derived. For example, in Euclidean geometry, one axiom is that "a straight line can be drawn between any two points."

Heard the term but hadn’t checked up on the meaning.

Think thats it.

On 9/17/2025 at 5:20 PM, BuddhasDragon23 said:

A singularity is a point in time, if you look carefully at a Penrose diagram in GR

I have looked at this however and am still formulating some questions. I guess I have one if you are so in need of them yet….

In a Penrose diagram of a stationary non rotating singularity the diagram illustrates the path in time and space light takes falling into a black hole. The area between the horizon and the boundary is technically what happens between the light passing the horizon and reaching the boundary where time and space end?

(to you, models break down, to me, they enter a superstate of relative infinities that smooth out to a point 0 which is the same 0 state of the singularity at the beginning of time and precursor to the big bang)

Would it be possible with a new mathematic model able to illustrate such possible infinite relative differences to extend an area so there is a second horizon? Not sure the Penrose diagram would be a useful way to illustrate this.

Is it ok to formulate untestable hypothesis, even though ideally they should be testable in the future? ie DaVinci obviously had a notion of flight being possible but lacked the technology, understanding of aerodynamics and gravity to build a working flying machine. If he had made a hypothesis would it have been valid but untestable.

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

The deep end of the pool is meant for people who know how to swim.

The deep end is the deep end, if i jump in a drown thats on me. You can argue i dont jump, you can try and throw me a lifeline, you may jump in and save me, or you may be able to teach me to swim. Only here do you even think you have the authority to dictate what I do or don’t. Banging your head on a brick wall mate.

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not drilled into it so this might be a twist of what it meant

Quote from you of my quote.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by BuddhasDragon23

30 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Is it ok to formulate untestable hypothesis, even though ideally they should be testable in the future?

You have barely scratched the surface of the significance of Penrose diagrams, yet you already want to propose 'untestable hypothesis' ?
And you wonder why we call it "making stuff up" ?

We call this a 'science forum'; I don't see 'fiction' anywhere in that term.

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

none of us would propose to incorporate H-P singularity theorems into a theory of Quantum Gravity.

If someone had a working theory of Quantum Gravity, are you saying it would replace all of classical theory, focus it to include the additional knowledge, or marry to it so the Classical remains and cannot be itself altered but becomes irrelevant at point where quantum gravity takes over?

Sorry i doubt you can answer that as you don't know. No one has such a theory yet.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

We call this a 'science forum'; I don't see 'fiction' anywhere in that term.

I see speculation, that was the green flag to me.

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Yes but is that what I am doing. My intuition is saying it does successfully withstand contact with reality, i need to find a way to prove it. Thus I came here.

OK, so what observation(s) are you proposing could be made to test the validity of your hypothesis?

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Like saying i think i am like Einstien, i did not

Where exactly did I say you think you are like Einsrein ?

Funny you should accuse me of this, although I did make a post at least in part supporting the sense of a quotation you attributed to Einstein, that was challenged by another member.

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Your 1+1=whatever was a pathetic attempt at questioning my intentions and implying I am doing something i am not

I said absolutely zero about your intentions.

I challenged a flat statement by you that 1+1 = 2 and offered some supporting evidence which you have thrown back in my face as pathetic.

Have you any further rude insults you wish to offer in return ?

Edited September 20Sep 20 by studiot

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I challenged a flat statement by you that 1+1 = 2 and offered some supporting evidence

The challenge was unnecessary

Question.

Do all attributes of classical theory reach 0 at the same point when reaching/becoming/transitioning into a singularity. ie, mass, volume, time, momentum etc

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

Where exactly did I say you think you are like Einsrein ?

Funny you should accuse me of this, although I did make a post at least in part supporting the sense of a quotation you attributed to Einstein, that was challenged by another member.

Sorry i meant to have answered this already.

No you did not but it illustrates the general way the posts from members of this forum have been. I am not dealing with any one of you. You are a collective and as I reply to one of you, another chips in. Up to you how you do this but if i think any individual is being a twat i will call that individual a twat. If a group are being twats i will call each and all of them twats. I haven’t called anyone a twat. If i want to throw insults i can be a lot worse than that whether you deserve it or not. I don't want to insult, but if someones actions cause me to accuse you of something that illustrates twatish behaviour, then it is on the twat or twats giving cause to be called a twat(s).

42 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The challenge was unnecessary

Question.

1) Do all attributes of classical theory reach 0 at the same point when reaching/becoming/transitioning into a singularity. ie, mass, volume, time, momentum etc

Sorry i meant to have answered this already.

2) No you did not but it illustrates the general way the posts from members of this forum have been. I am not dealing with any one of you. You are a collective and as I reply to one of you, another chips in. Up to you how you do this but if i think any individual is being a twat i will call that individual a twat. If a group are being twats i will call each and all of them twats. I haven’t called anyone a twat. If i want to throw insults i can be a lot worse than that whether you deserve it or not. I don't want to insult, but if someones actions cause me to accuse you of something that illustrates twatish behaviour, then it is on the twat or twats giving cause to be called a twat(s).

1. I have absolutely no idea. I have said nothing to indicate that I agree or disagree with the 'Big Bang' and I am not very interested in Cosmology or other the study of other unreachable realms.
   

2. Grow up.
   

39 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Do all attributes of classical theory reach 0 at the same point when reaching/becoming/transitioning into a singularity. ie, mass, volume, time, momentum etc

Classical theory is based on extremely large systems of many particles, where the probabilistic nature of such quantum particles is 'smoothed out' to give the 'common, everyday effects' we normally observe.
It is not so much that certain properties 'reach 0' at some point; rather the mathematical model is no longer applicable because other effects ( not accounted for in the model ) become predominant.
The 'trick' is knowing when a model is no longer applicable, and that takes a little knowledge, which is gained with a good foundation in basic Physics and Math.

It's about time you started asking some questions.

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

Bang' and I am not very interested in Cosmology

Ok, i will no need to reply to you from now on. Thx for you input.

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Classical theory is based on extremely large systems of many particles, where the probabilistic nature of such quantum particles is 'smoothed out' to give the 'common, everyday effects' we normally observe.

Got that, thx

So the interior Schwarzschild metric describes the gravity field within a spherical object taking equal density of that sphere?

It does not however describe the actual fields within that sphere as the equations are based on an object orbiting the sphere and is the total mass of the sphere’s volume at its surface?