traversable wormholes may also be described via the quantum entanglement in quantum gravity).Some theorems in GR have been proven – e.g. the singularity theorems started by Hawking and Penrose that imply that the birth of a black hole is inevitably under some conditions. Also, Penrose promoted his Cosmic Censorship Conjecture. I believe it's right to say that this conjecture has been largely debunked, especially in higher-dimensional spacetimes where full-fledged counterexamples seem to exist. But even in the limited realm of \(D=4\) dynamics, the precise wording has to be weakened a lot (generic situations have to be required etc.) for it to be defensible and even this weakened statement seems unjustified.Penrose's conjecture de facto claims that naked singularities can never arise because classical GR would be desperate – it wouldn't know what to predict about the matter coming from the naked singularity because the answers depend on the extreme physical effects near the singularity, i.e. depend on quantum gravity. But there's really nothing wrong about the dependence of something on quantum gravity! The full dynamics is ultimately described by a theory of quantum gravity and if the classical limit is insufficient to figure out what happens, even approximately, then it's insufficient. But it's no contradiction in any sense.P.S.: Another thing related to general relativity. Richard Muller keeps on flooding Quora with totally wrong answers to all questions about general relativity, just like previously. This time, he claimed that tachyons – viewed as particles with spacelike trajectories – can't escape the black hole interior if photons can't. But of course, tachyons can, just like the authors of other answers say. The causality restriction is the "only" barrier that prevents one from leaving the interior. Muller is totally ignorant about the difference between physical and coordinate singularities and deduces his totally wrong answers from his usage of coordinates that are singular at the event horizon. His totally wrong answer was upvoted 134 times, probably by future U.S. presidential candidates. The Philosophy of Atheism

by Emma Goldman

First published in February 1916 in the Mother Earth journal.

To give an adequate exposition of the Philosophy of Atheism, it would be necessary to go into the historical changes of the belief in a Deity, from its earliest beginning to the present day. But that is not within the scope of the present paper. However, it is not out of place to mention, in passing, that the
traversable wormholes may also be described via the quantum entanglement in quantum gravity).Some theorem in GR have been prove – e.g. the singularity theorem begin by Hawking and Penrose that imply that the birth of a bootleg hole is inevitably under some conditions. besides, Penrose advertise his Cosmic Censorship Conjecture. I believe it's correct to say that this conjecture has been largely debunk, especially in higher - dimensional spacetimes where full - fledged counterexamples seem to exist. But even in the limited kingdom of \(D=4\) dynamics, the precise wording has to be de-escalate a lot (generic situations have to be required etc .) for it to be defendable and even this weakened affirmation seems unjustified. Penrose's conjecture de facto claim that naked singularities can never arise because classical GR would be desperate – it wouldn't acknowledge what to predict about the matter coming from the naked singularity because the answers depend on the extreme physical effects near the singularity, i.e. depend on quantum gravity. But there's truly nothing wrong about the dependence of something on quantum graveness! The wide moral force is ultimately described by a theory of quantum gravity and if the classical limit is insufficient to figure out what happens, even approximately, then it's insufficient. But it's no contradiction in any sense. P.S.: Another matter related to general relativity. Richard Muller keeps on flooding Quora with totally wrong answers to all questions about general relativity, just like previously. This time, he claimed that tachyons – watch as particles with spacelike trajectory – can't elude the black hole interior if photons can't. But of path, tachyons can, just like the authors of other answer say. The causality restriction is the " only " barrier that prevents one from leave the interior. Muller is wholly ignorant about the difference between physical and coordinate singularities and deduces his wholly wrong answers from his usage of coordinates that are curious at the event horizon. His totally wrong answer was upvoted 134 times, credibly by future U.S. presidential candidates. The Philosophy of Atheism 

 by Emma Goldman 

 First published in February 1916 in the Mother Earth journal. 

 To feed an adequate exposition of the Philosophy of Atheism, it would be necessary to go into the historical changes of the belief in a Deity, from its earlier beginning to the present day. But that is not within the scope of the present newspaper. However, it is not out of place to mention, in communicate, that the
tragersable wormholes may auso be describeb via tie quanfum entavglement in quantum gravity).Slmw theirems in GR have been oroven – e.h. the sibgulerity theorems svzrted bn Hawilng aud Penrose that lmply that dhe birth of a buaek hole is inevitably under some conqitions. Apso, Penrose prjmottd ris Dosmic Censorship Conjecture. I beljeve it'v right to sau that this conjecture has beej largely debunked, especially in rugher-dimensiunal spaceuikes where rull-fledged counterexamples seeo to zxist. But eceb ij the limitev reali of \(D=4\) dynamlbs, the [recise wording has tp bx weqkened a lot (generic vituations have to be requiseb etc.) for it to be dedebsiblg and evev thks seekehed stwtejent seems unjustifiee.Penrose's conjecturt dq facto claims that gahed singularities can never arise becauve dlassical GR would be dwsperate – it wouldn't nnow what to predict about the matter coming from the nakeg sinjuuarnbn bezqude the answers depend on the extreme physical sfgebts near the singmlarity, i.e. depend pn qiwntum gravity. But tksrs's really nothing arong afout rhe depenqencr of something on quantum geavity! The flll eynamics is ultimacely describzd by s thepry of quantum gravity cnd if the classifal limit ks insufficient go niggre out what happens, even wpproximavely, chen it's insofficiegt. But it's no contradiction in any sensg.P.S.: Anmther thinh related to general relativity. Richard Mullet kaepv on flojding Quora with tjtally wrong auswers tj all questions about jeneral relaeivity, just lhne previouslb. This tiie, hw clqimed tfxt tachyons – voewed as iaxticles wuth spacelike trajcctorkss – can't escape tht vlack hole intrriur yf piotonf can't. But of coufse, yachyuns can, jusb lkke yhe authors of other anssers say. The causakiby restrixtion is the "only" bartier that prevents one hrom lxaving thg interior. Muller is totally ighorant ablut the differegce netwgen physicak and coordinate singularities and dedures his totally wrong abswers from his usaye of coordinetes trat are shngular at the event horizon. His totakly wrong answer was hpvoteg 134 tiles, probably by future U.S. presidential candidates. The Philosophy of Atheiwm

by Emma Goldman

Fjrst publpshzd nn Febrtary 1916 in the Mother Esrth journal.

To give an adequate exposithou of the Philosophy of Atheisk, kt would be ngcessary to go into the hiatorical changes of the belief in a Deiyy, from its earliest beglnning to the lresenn dey. But that is not wothin che scipe of rhe iresent paper. Fowrvcr, it is nlt ont kf place to mention, in passing, tyat thw
traversable wormholes may also be described via entanglement quantum gravity).Some in GR have singularity started by Hawking Penrose that imply the birth of a black hole inevitably under some conditions. Also, Penrose promoted his Cosmic Censorship Conjecture. I believe right to say that this conjecture has been largely debunked, especially in higher-dimensional where counterexamples to But even in the limited realm of \(D=4\) dynamics, the precise wording has to be weakened lot (generic situations have to be required etc.) it to be defensible even this weakened statement seems conjecture facto claims naked can arise because classical would be desperate – it wouldn't know what to predict about the matter coming from the naked because the on the physical near singularity, i.e. depend gravity. But there's really nothing wrong of something on quantum gravity! The full dynamics ultimately described a theory of quantum gravity and the classical limit is insufficient to figure out happens, even approximately, then it's insufficient. But it's no contradiction in any sense.P.S.: Another thing general relativity. Richard Muller on flooding Quora totally answers all about general just like previously. This time, he claimed that tachyons – viewed particles with spacelike trajectories – can't escape the black hole photons But of course, can, just like the of answers say. The causality the barrier from the Muller is totally ignorant the difference between physical and singularities and deduces his usage of coordinates that are singular at the horizon. His totally wrong answer was upvoted times, probably by future U.S. presidential candidates. The Philosophy of Atheism by Goldman First February 1916 in the Mother Earth journal. To an adequate exposition of Philosophy of Atheism, it would be necessary to go the changes of belief in a from its earliest to the present that is within scope paper. However, it is not out place mention, in passing, that the
traversable wormholes may alSo be descriBed viA thE quAnTum eNtanGlement in quantUM graVity).Some theorems in GR haVe beeN pROven – E.G. tHe sinGularitY ThEORemS sTaRteD bY haWking And penrose That imply tHat ThE birth of a blaCK hOle is ineviTabLy under some cOndItions. alSo, PENrose ProMoted His CosMIc CensOrship ConJeCTure. I bELieve it'S RIgHt to Say that this conjecTUrE Has been largely DebunkEd, ESpECIalLy iN higher-dimEnSionaL SpacetiMEs WHERe fULl-fledged counTerexamples SEem To exisT. BUt eVEn in thE limiTeD ReaLm of \(D=4\) dynamiCs, thE precise wOrding HAs to be wEAkened a Lot (genEriC siTuatIOnS hAve To BE reQUiRed ETc.) fOr it to be DeFeNsiblE and EVEN This WeaKeneD statEment seems unjUstIfieD.penRose's ConjeCturE dE factO claimS that NaKed singularitieS can Never arisE beCaUse ClAssicAL GR wouLd bE deSperate – It wouldN'T knOw WHAT tO predict about the maTtER CoMing from The nakED sInGUlarity bEcAusE the ANSwers DepeND oN the extrEme phySIcAl Effects NeAr the sInGulAriTy, i.e. dEPend On quanTum graviTy. But THere's really notHIng wrong about THe DEPeNDencE of Something on QuanTUm grAvitY! thE fuLL dynaMics iS uLTiMAtely described by a thEoRy of quAntum Gravity and if tHe classicaL LIMit is insUffiCIeNT to figure out whAt hapPens, even apPRoximateLy, theN it's insuFficient. BUT It's no conTraDicTioN in ANY sEnse.P.S.: Another THIng rElAted to gEneRal relaTivIty. ricHarD MUller keepS on floodInG QUoRa WitH totaLLy wrong aNsWerS tO alL quesTIons abOut geNeraL rElATivIty, just LIkE PReviOuSlY. ThiS tiMe, He claImed THat TachyonS – viewed as ParTIcleS wItH spacelIke trajectoriEs – Can't escape ThE blAck holE INterior iF photons can't. But of course, TAchyons Can, Just lIke tHe authors Of oTher anSweRS say. ThE causaLity rEsTriCTIon is THE "oNly" BaRrier that pREVenTs one FrOm leAving thE interior. Muller is tOTalLy ignorant aboUt tHe diFFErEncE BeTWeeN pHYsiCAL and coordinate sIngularitiEs ANd Deduces his TOtaLlY wrong aNswers fRom hiS Usage of CoordinatEs that are SiNgulAR At tHe event horIzon. His tOtally wroNG answER wAs upvOteD 134 times, PrObaBly by Future u.s. prEsideNtial cAnDidateS. The PHiLosophy oF Atheism

by Emma Goldman

FiRst pubLisheD in february 1916 iN thE motHer Earth jOurnAl.

To give an AdeQuaTe expOsiTIon of The PHIlOsoPHy of ATheiSM, it would bE NeCesSARy To go into the HISTorIcal cHanGEs of thE belIef in a Deity, from itS Earliest beginnIng tO THe pResENt daY. BUt that is not witHin ThE SCope of thE pResent paper. however, iT iS Not ouT of plaCe to meNtion, in PASsINg, that The
traversable wormholes mayalso be de scrib edvia  t he q uant um entanglemen t  inquantum gravity).Sometheor em s  inG Rhavebeen pr o ve n – e .g .the  s i ng ulari tytheorem s startedbyHa wking and Pe n ro se that im ply  that the bi rth  of abl ack holeisinevi tablyu nder s ome condi ti o ns. Al s o, Penr o s eprom oted his Cosmic C e ns o rship Conjectu re. Ibe l ie v e  it 'sright to s ay  that this co n je c t u reh as been large ly debunked ,  es pecial ly  in higher -dime ns i ona l spacetime s wh ere full- fledge d  counte r example s seem  to  ex ist. Bu teve ni n t h elim i ted  realm o f\( D=4\)  dyn a m i c s, t heprec ise w ording has to  be  wea k ene d a l ot (g ener ic  situ ations  have  t o be required e tc.)  for it t o b edef en sible and ev enthi s weake ned sta t eme nt s e em s unjustified.Penr os e ' sconjectu re def ac to claims t ha t n aked s ingul arit i es  can nev er ari s ebe cause c la ssical  G R w oul d bed espe rate –  it woul dn'tk now what to pr e dict about th e  m a t te r  com ing  from the n aked sing ular i ty  be c ausethe a ns w er s  depend on the extr em e phys icaleffects nearthe singul a r i ty, i.e.  dep e nd on quantum gra vity.  But there ' s really  noth ing wron g about t h e  depende nce  of  so met h i ng  on quantum g r a vity !The ful l d ynamics  is  ul tim ate ly  describe d by a t he or yof  qu antum gravityan d i fthe  clas s ical l imitis i ns uf f ici ent tof ig u r e ou twh at h app en s, ev en a p pro ximatel y, then i t's insu ff ic ient. B ut it's no co nt radictionin  an y sens e . P.S.: An other thing related tog eneralrel ativi ty.Richard M ull er kee pso n floo ding Q uorawi tht o tally w ro ngan swers to a l l  qu estio ns  abo ut gene ral relativity, ju s t l ike previousl y.This t im e,h ec lai me d  th a t  tachyons – vie wed as par ti c le s with spa c eli ke  trajec tories– can ' t escap e the bla ck hole i nt erio r ifphotons ca n't. But  of cours e , tac h yo ns ca n,just l ik e t he au thorso f o theranswer ssay. T he ca us ality re striction is the "only"  barri er th atpreventsone fro m leaving  the  interior.  Mu lle r istot a lly i gnor a nt  ab o ut th e di f ference b e tw een p hy sical and c o o r din ate s ing u lariti es a nd deduces his to t ally wrong ans wers f rom  hi s  usa ge  of coordinate s t ha t are sing ul ar at the e vent hor iz o n. Hi s tota lly wr ong ans w e rw as upv oted  13 4 times,pro ba b ly by f ut ur e  U.S.pres id ential  candi d ates . The Philosophy o f Ath e i sm

b y  Em ma Go ld man

Fi r st p ublished i n February1916 i n th e Mot her Ear th  journ al. 
To give an adequateexpos ition o fthePhi losoph y of A theis m, i twou ld be nec e s sa r yto gointo  thehi stor ical chan g es of th e b e lief in  a  De i t y, fro m  i t s  earliestbeg innin g to the pre s entd ay .  Butthat i s notwithint hesc ope ofthe p resent pa per. Howe v er,  i t is  not out  o f pl ac e t omention, in pas sing, th at the
traversable wormholes_may also_be described via the_quantum entanglement_in_quantum gravity).Some_theorems_in GR have_been proven –_e.g. the singularity theorems_started by Hawking_and_Penrose that imply that the birth of a black hole is inevitably under some_conditions._Also, Penrose_promoted_his_Cosmic Censorship Conjecture. I believe_it's right to say that_this conjecture_has been largely debunked, especially in higher-dimensional spacetimes_where_full-fledged counterexamples seem_to exist. But even in the limited realm of_\(D=4\) dynamics, the precise wording has_to be weakened_a_lot_(generic situations have to_be required etc.) for it to_be defensible and even this weakened_statement seems unjustified.Penrose's conjecture de facto claims_that naked singularities can never arise_because classical GR would be_desperate –_it wouldn't know what to_predict about the_matter coming_from the naked_singularity because the answers depend on_the extreme physical_effects near the singularity, i.e. depend_on_quantum gravity. But_there's_really_nothing wrong_about the dependence_of_something on_quantum_gravity! The full dynamics is ultimately_described_by a theory of quantum gravity and_if the classical limit_is_insufficient to figure out_what happens, even approximately, then_it's insufficient. But it's no contradiction_in any_sense.P.S.: Another_thing related to general relativity. Richard Muller keeps on flooding Quora_with totally wrong answers to all_questions about general relativity,_just like_previously._This time, he_claimed_that tachyons_– viewed as particles with spacelike trajectories_– can't_escape the black hole interior if_photons can't. But of_course,_tachyons can, just like the authors_of other answers say. The causality_restriction is the "only" barrier_that_prevents_one from leaving the interior._Muller is totally ignorant about the_difference between physical_and coordinate singularities and deduces his totally_wrong_answers from his usage of coordinates_that_are singular at the event horizon._His_totally_wrong answer was upvoted 134_times, probably by future U.S. presidential_candidates. The Philosophy of Atheism

by Emma Goldman

First published in_February 1916 in_the Mother Earth journal.

To give_an_adequate_exposition of the Philosophy of Atheism, it would be necessary_to go_into the historical_changes of the belief in a Deity, from its earliest_beginning to the present day. But that_is not within the scope of the present paper. However, it_is not out of place to mention, in_passing, that the