This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

[paddoboy]

Linking general relativity and quantum mechanics with wormholes.

18 AUG 2016

One of the most stubborn problems in physics today is the fact that our two best theories to explain the Universe - general relativity and quantum mechanics - function perfectly well on their own, but as soon as you try to combine them, the maths just doesn’t work out.

But a Stanford theoretical physicist has just come up with a new equation that suggests the key to finally connecting the two could be found in bizarre spacetime tunnels called wormholes.

The equation is deceptively simple: ER = EPR.

It’s not made up of numerical values, but instead represents the names of some key players in theoretical physics.

On the left side of the equation, the ER stands for Einstein and Nathan Rosen, and refers to a 1935 paper they wrote together describing wormholes, known technically as Einstein-Rosen bridges.

On the right side of the equation, EPR stands for Einstein, Rosen and Boris Podolsky, who co-wrote another paper that yeardescribing quantum entanglement.

Back in 2013, physicist Leonard Susskind from Stanford University and Juan Maldacena from the Institute for Advance Study at Princeton suggested that the two papers could be describing pretty much the same thing - something that no one else in the field had previously considered, including Einstein himself.

Now Susskind is back to discuss the implications if he’s in fact right.

more at link:
http://www.sciencealert.com/this-ne...wo-biggest-theories-in-physics-says-physicist

 

[paddoboy]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02589v2.pdf

Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and ER=EPR

Leonard Susskind:
Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060, USA

Abstract
Quantum gravity may have as much to tell us about the foundations and interpretation of quantum mechanics as it does about gravity. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and Everett’s Relative State Formulation are complementary descriptions which in a sense are dual to one another. My purpose here is to discuss this duality in the light of the of ER=EPR conjecture.

 

[paddoboy]

Here is the original ER paper.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73

The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity
A. EINSTEIN AND N. ROSEN,
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
(Received May 8, 1935)


ABSTRACT:
The writers investigate the possibility of an atomistic theory of matter and electricity which, while excluding singularities of the field, makes use of no other variables than the g&„of the general relativity theory and the p„of the Maxwell theory. By the consideration of a simple example they are led to modify slightly the gravitational equations which then admit regular solutions for the static spherically symmetric case. These solutions involve the mathematical representation of physical space by a space of two identical sheets, a particle being represented by a "bridge" connecting these sheets. One is able to understand why no neutral particles of negative mass are to be found. The combined system of gravitational and electromagnetic equations are treated similarly and lead to a similar interpretation. The most natural elementary charged particle is found to be one of zero mass. The many particle system is expected to be represented by a regular solution of the field equations corresponding to a space of two identical sheets joined by many bridges. In this case, because of the absence of singularities, the field equations determine both the field and the motion of the particles. The many-particle problem, which would decide the value of the theory, has not yet been treated.

 

[paddoboy]

The following is an excellent video of Leonard Susskind discussing the pros and cons of that other late great Physicist, Richard Feynman>

https://www.ted.com/talks/leonard_susskind_my_friend_richard_feynman?language=en

15 minutes of a great insight to a great Physicist!

 

[The God]

Its weirdo.
Two black holes entangled on the opposite side of universe; one thing is for sure universe may or may not be infinite but imagination is.

I always wondered how the mass of BH influences this side of universe if it travels through the worm hole to other side? This appears to have been solved by this paper, some kind of give and take between two BHs on either side.

 

[paddoboy]

Its weirdo.
Two black holes entangled on the opposite side of universe; one thing is for sure universe may or may not be infinite but imagination is.

I always wondered how the mass of BH influences this side of universe if it travels through the worm hole to other side? This appears to have been solved by this paper, some kind of give and take between two BHs on either side.

It's a possible speculative scenario by a well respect professional.
No where does he claim, this is fact! No where does he claim, This is how it is.
You need to take a leaf out of his book, rather than making comments that show ignorance.

 

[expletives deleted]

Past professional and amateur hypotheses to do with "wormholes" admitted to a serious and fatal flaw in the assumptions used. Namely, it needs yet-to-be-discovered 'exotic energy' to keep the "wormhole" from collapsing immediately it forms (assuming that it can form in the first instance).

So the obvious and valid scientific questions arise:

(1) Does the above authors' approach, speculatively correlating the original separate theories and equating their scenarios, as expressed via their "ER = EPR" perspective, actually solve the need for 'exotic energy'; and the problem of 'immediate collapse'?

(2) Can 'entanglement' survive for any effectively meaningful amount of duration given the hugely dynamical and extreme conditions inherent in any "wormhole" scenarios?

NOTE WELL: I made no claims. Merely referred to previous known professional speculative hypotheses and the already acknowledged difficulties with same, hence the valid scientific questions I posed. Thanks.

 

[Seattle]

Most science articles in the mainstream press start out this way. A new comet that may collide with Earth has been found.

If this new found phenomenon proves to be true this will disprove Einstein's General Relativity Theory some scientists say.

Or my favorite by news organizations all over the world (non-science related). Headline...Is Obama going to finally give it to Israel? Bottom line after reading the story...no.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Most science articles in the mainstream press start out this way. A new comet that may collide with Earth has been found.

If this new found phenomenon proves to be true this will disprove Einstein's General Relativity Theory some scientists say.

Or my favorite by news organizations all over the world (non-science related). Headline...Is Obama going to finally give it to Israel? Bottom line after reading the story...no.

Grok'd, Seattle,
I concur fully...merely Pop-Science Pablum...

 

[paddoboy]

NOTE WELL: I made no claims. Merely referred to previous known professional speculative hypotheses and the already acknowledged difficulties with same, hence the valid scientific questions I posed. Thanks.

That's OK! Nothing to worry about!
It's a well known fact that wormholes are a speculative, yet to be observed prediction of GR, and as I said, this is a speculative paper.
Still worth considering though, don't you think?
I mean who knows what the future of science will hold in store for us! Even GR maybe surpassed one day!

Most science articles in the mainstream press start out this way. A new comet that may collide with Earth has been found.

If this new found phenomenon proves to be true this will disprove Einstein's General Relativity Theory some scientists say.

Most articles period, are out to sensationalise so as to gain readers I agree.
But as I have just said, I don't believe anyone is really fooled as to the article and paper being entirely speculative, as are many scientific papers on the speculative side.
But while GR still reigns supreme, and while wormholes are a prediction, it will be researched and considered accordingly.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

That's OK! Nothing to worry about!

It's not a question of "worry" but of scientific scrutiny and questioning.

It's a well known fact that wormholes are a speculative, yet to be observed prediction of GR, and as I said, this is a speculative paper.

The Entanglement aspect involved in the scenario of the OP exercise is a Quantum Theory concept not part of GR at all.

And the GR-math extrapolations which 'predict' absurd abstractions not capable of being realized due to Quantum Mechanical principles and effects, and which cannot even form or remain stable against immediate collapse (let alone against immediate Quantum entanglement De-coherence) without NON-existent "exotic energy', is more than just "speculative".

It is essentially SCIENCE FICTION or more like FANTASY. As such, perhaps it should have been posted in the "ON THE FRINGE" section of the board; EITHER under "Alternative Theories" speculations OR "Pseudoscience" speculations?

Still worth considering though, don't you think?
I mean who knows what the future of science will hold in store for us! Even GR maybe surpassed one day!

That is their choice, whether to pursue something that, if it was posited by a 'crank' here, would be laughed out of the SCIENCE section (and called by some here "pseudoscience", "word salad", or probably worse).

I am all for reasonable and farsighted scientific speculation, but in it's proper place on the board; not in the real science sections; since absurd science fiction/fantasy stuff that any 'crank' can crank out is not real science, but science fiction/fantasy.

Most articles period, are out to sensationalise so as to gain readers I agree.
But as I have just said, I don't believe anyone is really fooled as to the article and paper being entirely speculative, as are many scientific papers on the speculative side.
But while GR still reigns supreme, and while wormholes are a prediction, it will be researched and considered accordingly.

Please refer to my above comments.

Thanks. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:

It's not a question of "worry" but of scientific scrutiny and questioning.
The Entanglement aspect involved in the scenario of the OP exercise is a Quantum Theory concept not part of GR at all.

Firstly, the scientific scrutiny will certainly be applied by the professionals, not you or I and our obvious amateurish status and sometimes ignorance.

And the GR-math extrapolations which 'predict' absurd abstractions not capable of being realized due to Quantum Mechanical principles and effects, and which cannot even form or remain stable against immediate collapse (let alone against immediate Quantum entanglement De-coherence) without NON-existent "exotic energy', is more than just "speculative".

It is essentially SCIENCE FICTION or more like FANTASY. As such, perhaps it should have been posted in the "ON THE FRINGE" section of the board; EITHER under "Alternative Theories" speculations OR "Pseudoscience" speculations?

That is their choice, whether to pursue something that, if it was posited by a 'crank' here, would be laughed out of the SCIENCE section (and called by some here "pseudoscience", "word salad", or probably worse).

I am all for reasonable and farsighted scientific speculation, but in it's proper place on the board; not in the real science sections; since absurd science fiction/fantasy stuff that any 'crank' can crank out is not real science, but science fiction/fantasy.

Please refer to my above comments.

Thanks. Best.

This is indeed scientific speculation as we all know and is in the right section.
It suggests nothing against accepted mainstream science, but simply speculates beyond the realm of what we already know with some certainty.
The "crank" notion since you raised it, is actually what those cranks suggest without any citation or referential support within the science sections: Mostly of course due to agendas of many types, whether religious, simply an anti mainstream bias, or sufferers of "delusions of grandeur"

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Firstly, the scientific scrutiny will certainly be applied by the professionals, not you or I and our obvious amateurish status and sometimes ignorance.

Please don't presume to speak for me or anyone else here who applies the Scientific Method and concomitant crucial Relevance and Objectivity Principles.

From your constant fixation and deference on the source or person, you are obviously more influenced by and concerned with your own opinions, and the incessant denigration of the capabilities and potential of this site and the membership, than you are concerned with applying the Scientific Method and sticking to objective and relevant matters rather than constantly bringing in irrelevant and subjective matters into your posts.

This is indeed scientific speculation as we all know and is in the right section.
It suggests nothing against accepted mainstream science, but simply speculates beyond the realm of what we already know with some certainty.

I just pointed out to you that the Entanglement aspect in the OP scenario is NOT part of GR, so it goes against that for a start.

And also that the 'exotic energy' needed has long been admitted to be non-existent, and hence just a 'fantasy wish' by all past and present authors of "wormhole" science fiction/fantasy speculations, all of which have no real basis in any real science either in GR or Quantum Theory.

So your equivocation and excuses for such 'crank' stuff from 'professionals' is just your own wishful thinking? Perhaps because you 'believe' it to be 'science' just because a 'professional' crank came up with it? In any case, I just pointed out to you the irrefutable whys and wherefores that clearly identify the OP 'idea' as NOT real science, or anything like it.

The "crank" notion since you raised it, is actually what those cranks suggest without any citation or referential support within the science sections: Mostly of course due to agendas of many types, whether religious, simply an anti mainstream bias, or sufferers of "delusions of grandeur"

Citing other absurd wormhole fantasies doesn't make the OP 'idea' real science; and the obvious flaws I already pointed out for you makes it even less so, no matter how many 'citations' are made by the OP 'idea' authors.

One should strive to be less an uncritical 'fan', and more a skeptical 'scientist' at all times; especially when discussing in the science section, don't you think, paddoboy?

Thanks. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:

Please don't presume to speak for me or anyone else here who applies the Scientific Method and concomitant crucial Relevance and Objectivity Principles.

Your posts seem to reflect a complex of sorts?
Like I said, the scientific method and scientific scrutiny, will most certainly be applied by professionals that matter. This is a discussion forum, scientific at times no doubt, but just a discussion forum.

From your constant fixation and deference on the source or person, you are obviously more influenced by and concerned with your own opinions, and the incessant denigration of the capabilities and potential of this site and the membership, than you are concerned with applying the Scientific Method and sticking to objective and relevant matters rather than constantly bringing in irrelevant and subjective matters into your posts.

Facts are facts are facts: This is a forum, nothing more, nothing less. The scientific methodology will be maintained.

I just pointed out to you that the Entanglement aspect in the OP scenario is NOT part of GR, so it goes against that for a start.

Your "pointing out" as you say, is irrelevant to the thread and paper in the OP.
This is a scientifically speculative scenario, by a recognised professional and thoughts from a recognised leader in theoretical Physics.
You need to respect that.

And also that the 'exotic energy' needed has long been admitted to be a non-existent and hence just a 'fantasy wish' by all past and present authors of "wormhole" science fiction/fantasy speculations which have no real basis in any real science either in GR or Quantum Theory.

So your equivocation and excuses for such 'crank' stuff from 'professionals' is just your own wishful thinking? Perhaps because you 'believe' it to be 'science' just because a 'professional' crank came up with it? In any case, I just pointed out to you the irrefutable whys and wherefores that clearly identify the OP 'idea' as NOT real science, or anything like it.

Citing other absurd wormhole fantasies doesn't make the OP 'idea' real science; and the obvious flaws I already pointed out for you makes it even less so, no matter how many 'citations' are made by the OP 'idea' authors.

One should strive to be less a uncritical 'fan', and more a skeptical 'scientist' at all times; especially when discussing in the science section, don't you think, paddoboy?

Thanks. Best.

Your continued rhetoric while remaining unsupported as in previous threads, is treated with the contempt it deserves...sorry about that.

 

[paddoboy]

Wormholes as yet, are still speculative which no one denies, but are also still a prediction of GR, as are BH's, NS's, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and time dilation, gravitational waves, which of course we have plenty of evidence for the existence of those entities.
I don't believe there is a reputable professional scientist who has come out and said categorically, that worm holes do not exist.
So at this stage, all we can say with confidence is, who knows?

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Your posts seem to reflect a complex of sorts?
Like I said, the scientific method and scientific scrutiny, will most certainly be applied by professionals that matter. This is a discussion forum, scientific at times no doubt, but just a discussion forum.

Come again, paddoboy?

I just espoused and encouraged the application of the Scientific Method and principles of relevance and objectivity; as opposed to applying personal opinion, beliefs and other subjective things based on irrelevant personal considerations.

And you come back saying that MY posts "seem to reflect a complex of sorts"? Now that is amusing (really).

Dear, dear, paddoboy, have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps it is YOUR posts that "reflect a complex of sorts"? It may explain why you seem so 'driven' in your unrelenting and subjective derision and dismissal of the site and membership potential for science discussion and understanding as well as bringing original ideas to the table.

Facts are facts are facts: This is a forum, nothing more, nothing less. The scientific methodology will be maintained.

But your subjective and confirmation biased way of "reading" let alone "understanding" has been demonstrated only recently, so what you may consider and believe to be "facts" may not be as you 'believe' them to be. And yes, you would do well to consider making a start on applying scientific methodology, and maintaining it against your previously demonstrated inclination to ignore the scientific methodology in favor of applying your own personal and irrelevances based 'un-scientific methodology'. I look forward to your newfound acknowledgement that the scientific methodology is better than the un-scientific methodology that is all too often carelessly applied by some who let emotional and personal considerations influence what should be a scientific approach to all valid science questions regardless of author or source.

Your "pointing out" as you say, is irrelevant to the thread and paper in the OP.
This is a scientifically speculative scenario, by a recognised professional and thoughts from a recognised leader in theoretical Physics.
You need to respect that.

Perhaps you did not catch that the OP relies on Entanglement between TWO black holes?

And whatever recognition status said professionals have acquired to date, it is the SCIENTIFIC Validity that determines what is to be "respected" and what is not. Maybe your tendency to "personally respect" instead of "scientifically inspect" is what leads you to form such subjective perspectives on practically everything you comment on? Applying scientific methodology would be a good start in weaning yourself away from these subjective tendencies on your part.

Your continued rhetoric while remaining unsupported as in previous threads, is treated with the contempt it deserves...sorry about that.

Again with your personal opinions based mischaracterizations which bear no relation to the science facts as I pointed out to you here and elsewhere. Is your, as you called it, "complex of sorts" so ingrained that you ignore that obvious fact; and so continue in your personal and subjective irrelevant vein in what is supposed to be a science discussion on its scientific points as presented on its merits and irrespective of source or personal opinions?

Try actually applying scientific methodology instead of your personality and other irrelevancies based, as you call it, "rhetoric".

Wormholes as yet, are still speculative which no one denies, but are also still a prediction of GR, as are BH's, NS's, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and time dilation, which of course we have plenty of evidence for the existence of those entities.
I don't believe there is a reputable professional scientist who has come out and said categorically, that worm holes do not exist.
So at this stage, all we can say with confidence is, who knows?

Some of those are extrapolations of GR maths etc which take it beyond their domain of applicability; hence the absurdities and fantasies already pointed out which are therefore flawed when the real science and facts I alluded to are applied to such absurdities and fantasies. Your 'faith' in reputations and professional status is touching, paddoboy; but is of no currency when actual scientific scrutiny as I applied above demonstrates that the OP is flawed irrespective of such reputations and status considerations which seem to impress you more than the scientific method and facts do.

Dear paddoboy, I applaud your "enthusiasm" and "faith" etc, as it is sometimes useful in human affairs in general. But in matters scientific, those things are not enough; and sometimes they may actually be detrimental and counter-productive; especially if your emotion and subjectivity is magnified by your enthusiasms and faith to the point of leading you to confirmation bias and prejudices and the inevitable misunderstandings which such things bring to the thus affected mind.

May I suggest, as a friend-by-default, and as a fellow member of Sciforums, that you seriously consider beginning practicing dispassionate objective impersonal and calm application of the scientific methodology asap? It will help you and everyone concerned in any discussions you enter.

In any case, thanks anyway for your kind attention. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:

Come again, paddoboy?

I just espoused and encouraged the application of the Scientific Method and principles of relevance and objectivity; as opposed to applying personal opinion, beliefs and other subjective things based on irrelevant personal considerations.

And you come back saying that MY posts "seem to reflect a complex of sorts"? Now that is amusing (really).

Well why not apply your "supposed standards" with what you post?
Like the scientific method for a start! Like recognising a valid scientific theory as that for seconds, and cease dismissing accepted mainstream theories like gravitational waves, cosmological redshift, DM, and finally, generally accepted 21st century cosmology, from a position of unknown qualifications, and a refusal to divuldge them, or lack of them.
And then funnily enough, expecting me and/or the forum to take what you fabricate as gospel.

Dear, dear, paddoboy, have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps it is YOUR posts that "reflect a complex of sorts"? It may explain why you seem so 'driven' in your unrelenting and subjective derision and dismissal of the site and membership potential for science discussion and understanding as well as bringing original ideas to the table.

I don't dismiss the site: I dismiss the lax rules that see this site as near overrun with alternative nuts, cranks and god botherers, doing their best to invalidate what they cannot invalidate from the comfort of their lounge chairs on a remote science forum, as applies to any science forum.

But your subjective and confirmation biased way of "reading" let alone "understanding" has been demonstrated only recently, so what you may consider and believe to be "facts" may not be as you 'believe' them to be.

The only subjective and confirmation bias shown recently was in Plasma's Coalescing Neutron Star thread and the unsupported nonsense in that thread by unqualified individuals, that neither can support with citations, links and or references of any kind.
Of course that unsupported rhetoric made SFA difference to the actual fact of the H/T Pulsar system and gravitational waves, just as the same unsupported rhetoric makes no difference to what is being intelligently speculated by the professionals invoLved in this thread, such as Professor Susskind


At this stage of proceedings I have deleted without reading, the rest of your lengthy rhetorical diatribe and remind you of what another great once said......
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

 

[paddoboy]

And whatever recognition status said professionals have acquired to date, it is the SCIENTIFIC Validity that determines what is to be "respected" and what is not.

But you have no professional status that anyone knows of, and as others have noted in other threads, and for the same reasons as I have informed you of many times, with regards to your posts, no credibility.
I'm OK my friend. I support all I say with reputable links, that I do understand. You support nothing and all we get is pretentious unscientific and unsupported nonsense.
I'll stand by the judgement of my peers on this forum, just as you most certainly will, I'm sure you'll agree, correct?

 

[paddoboy]

here is an interesting video on the same concept.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Dear paddoboy,

Well why not apply your "supposed standards" with what you post?

Like the scientific method for a start!

I did just that, dear paddoboy, above in this thread (and have done elsewhere).

And you just came back with "un-scientific methodology" personal opinion based on reputations and status related irrelevancies and beliefs which did not affect the objective and valid scientific points I raised and explained to you; but which you seem to misunderstand, or just ignore, for whatever personal reasons of your own.

Like recognising a valid scientific theory as that for seconds,

Dear paddoboy, I just explained to you, citing the scientific reasons of the whys and wherefores the above OP 'idea' is NOT "a valid scientific theory" by any stretch of your considerable 'faith' in the reputation of the authors or source. So how can one "recognize" that above OP 'ideas' as representing "a valid scientific theory" when it is patently not such? Maybe you can convince yourself to "recognize" it as such, paddoboy; but no real scientist can justify doing so, based on the valid scientific observations I made that identify the OP 'idea' as being nowhere near "valid scientific theory".

and cease dismissing accepted mainstream theories like gravitational waves, cosmological redshift, DM,

Please don't drag in off-topic stuff that has nothing to do with the OP's 'idea' and the on-topic issue I raised. Thanks.

and finally, generally accepted 21st century cosmology, from a position of unknown qualifications, and a refusal to divuldge them, or lack of them.
And then funnily enough, expecting me and/or the forum to take what you fabricate as gospel.

There you go with your faith based personal opinions and disparagements based on irrelevant and prejudicial assumptions of your own 'fabrication'.

Whereas I posted valid scientific objections to the OP 'idea'. So which of us two is actually on topic and on science here, paddoboy; and which of us is actually off-topic and off-science?

I don't dismiss the site: I dismiss the lax rules that see this site as near overrun with alternative nuts, cranks and god botherers, doing their best to invalidate what they cannot invalidate from the comfort of their lounge chairs on a remote science forum, as applies to any science forum.

That is your personal prejudice and opinion talking. I just scientifically pointed out where and why the above OP 'idea' is not scientific at all. So your opinion is refuted and proven incorrect even before you posted that opinion. And your posting record is replete with disparaging remarks about members and site's potential for contributing constructively to science discussion and advancement. You obviously assume that all 'reputable' scientists live in their 'ivory towers' and never venture forth into the science forum discussion sites and discussions. That is your opinion and may in fact be wrong opinion, because you don't know who is a member or who is reading without joining. Being negative and dismissive is your seeming "complex of sorts" at least as far as your posting record evidences.

The only subjective and confirmation bias shown recently was in Plasma's Coalescing Neutron Star thread and the unsupported nonsense in that thread by unqualified individuals, that neither can support with citations, links and or references of any kind.
Of course that unsupported rhetoric made SFA difference to the actual fact of the H/T Pulsar system and gravitational waves,

The "only"? You obviously forgot to admit your demonstrated subjective and confirmation biased readings and understandings which led to your own conflations and confusions as patiently explained to you more than once, dear paddoboy. And anyway, that is off-topic in this OP/thread. Please don't keep cluttering THIS thread too with your off-topic stuff. Thanks.

just as the same unsupported rhetoric makes no difference to what is being intelligently speculated by the professionals invoLved in this thread, such as Professor Susskind

So far the "unsupported rhetoric" has been issuing from your quarter, dear paddoboy.

Whereas I posted scientifically valid reasons why the OP 'idea', however "intelligently speculated" by its "professional" author, is scientifically NOT valid; and is therefore just science fiction/fantasy type "intelligent speculation". That you still cannot tell the difference means that you still have yet to begin applying the scientific methodology to which you give lip service while applying your own 'un-scientific methodology', based almost entirely on reputation, faith and speculative beliefs and wishful thinking considerations.

At this stage of proceedings I have deleted without reading, the rest of your lengthy rhetorical diatribe and remind you of what another great once said......
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Such "deleting without reading", and such prejudicial and subjective mischaracterization of what is in responses to you, is the first step on the slippery slope to denial and fantasy worlds of your own making because you apparently are too ill equipped in knowledge and objectivity, and hence cannot face the scientific validity of what has been scientifically pointed out to you; perhaps because it clashes with your own self-made world where only "reputation" and "faith" and other such subjective irrelevances passes for "scientific methodology"?

Thanks anyway for your kind attention, dear paddoboy. Best.