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

[Schmelzer]

You see the paper ... is by two respected, reputable physicists, is published so the world can see, and offer its criticism or otherwise, of this hypothetical scenario which because of your own "problem" you seem to have forgotten. So you as a "professional" should be approaching this "professionally" and through the proper channels, if of course what you believed had any certain substance to it at all.

Feel free to respect them, I'm not obliged to care about this. Their considerations are based, btw, on the pseudoscience based on Hawking radiation, which I have already criticized even here afair.

At this stage I must say, "Who cares?" or "So what?" with regards to your own highly biased opinion/s

Of course, you are in no way obliged to care about my opinion. You may also consider my opinion to be highly biased - but, given that you have no arguments (don't forget that I reject only very few parts of modern physics, those which are not even claimed to be supported by observations, so to suggest that I'm biased against established science would be stupid) this is nothing anybody would care about.

 

[paddoboy]

Feel free to respect them, I'm not obliged to care about this. Their considerations are based, btw, on the pseudoscience based on Hawking radiation, which I have already criticized even here afair.

Yet it is your own pseudoscience that languishes in oblivion. And of course you do not need to care about or respect noted professional people, just as I feel about you and your lack of professionalism.

Of course, you are in no way obliged to care about my opinion. You may also consider my opinion to be highly biased - but, given that you have no arguments (don't forget that I reject only very few parts of modern physics, those which are not even claimed to be supported by observations, so to suggest that I'm biased against established science would be stupid) this is nothing anybody would care about.

Correct, I don't. And it's rather easy to establish which part of modern physics you accept and/or reject...It's all based of course on whether that aspect of physics either supports and compliments your ether baby, or rejects the same.
And of course while you are correct that some parts of modern cosmology is not supported by observation, [as worm holes] they are also not classed as fully accepted scientific theories.
Worm holes are a legit prediction: They have as yet to be observed:They remain speculative: No one has yet said that they are positively assumed: They may never be observed, but at this stage of the game, no physicist has ever categorically said that they do not exist.

 

[Schmelzer]

And it's rather easy to establish which part of modern physics you accept and/or reject...It's all based of course on whether that aspect of physics either supports and compliments your ether baby, or rejects the same.

You think that all the support for the Standard Model of particle physics, and all the observational support for GR "supports and compliments [my] ether baby"?

Fine, let's remember this acknowledgement.

 

[paddoboy]

You think that all the support for the Standard Model of particle physics, and all the observational support for GR "supports and compliments [my] ether baby"?

Fine, let's remember this acknowledgement.

That's not what I said.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's not what I said.

Then what you said is false. Because I have always supported all the support for the Standard Model of particle physics, and all the observational support for GR.

 

[paddoboy]

Then what you said is false. Because I have always supported all the support for the Standard Model of particle physics, and all the observational support for GR.

No, what I said I believe to be true......
It's rather easy to establish which part of modern physics you accept and/or reject...It's all based of course on whether that aspect of physics either supports and compliments your ether baby, or rejects the same.
And of course while you are correct that some parts of modern cosmology is not supported by observation, [as worm holes] they are also not classed as fully accepted scientific theories.
Worm holes are a legit prediction: They have as yet to be observed:They remain speculative: No one has yet said that they are positively assumed: They may never be observed, but at this stage of the game, no physicist has ever categorically said that they do not exist.

 

[The God]

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....

Basic Algebra for Paddoboy.

ER = EPR is an algebraic equation, ok.
Solving further,we get

0 = P.

So, Podolsky is zero. Since "Sky" cannot be zero, so we get...

Podol = 0.

This "Podol" sounds Like Wodole or like wormhole (Nearest scientific term in cosmology)....

So we get

Wormhole = 0.

Now since wormhole is a logical and speculative established science prediction directly deried from " E " hence it cannot be zero so our assumption that "sky" cannot be zero is wrong, so we get..

Sky =0.

Thus we have mathematically proved that sky is null and void.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, what I said I believe to be true......
It's rather easy to establish which part of modern physics you accept and/or reject...It's all based of course on whether that aspect of physics either supports and compliments your ether baby, or rejects the same.

And now combine it with the point that I accept all experimental and observational support as for the SM of particle physics, as for the SM of cosmology, as for GR. The logical conclusion is that all this "either supports and compliments [my] ether baby". Not?

 

[paddoboy]

And now combine it with the point that I accept all experimental and observational support as for the SM of particle physics, as for the SM of cosmology, as for GR. The logical conclusion is that all this "either supports and compliments [my] ether baby". Not?

You again miss the point I make. :shrug:

 

[paddoboy]

It's also a well known fact that many trolls disguise their ignorance, with poor attempts at humour.
If the cap fits, wear it.

 

[Schmelzer]

You again miss the point I make. :shrug:

The point you want to make is stupid propaganda against me.

I confront you with the simple fact that there is not a single hard science result which I deny. So, you have the choice: Take back your stupid propaganda claim, or accept the purely logical consequences of your propaganda claim and the facts about what I accept.

Or, as the alternative, start to openly lie about what I support and what I do not support.

 

[paddoboy]

The point you want to make is stupid propaganda against me.

I confront you with the simple fact that there is not a single hard science result which I deny. So, you have the choice: Take back your stupid propaganda claim, or accept the purely logical consequences of your propaganda claim and the facts about what I accept.

Or, as the alternative, start to openly lie about what I support and what I do not support.

If it was half as crazy as the stupid propaganda you are known for in the political sections, I would be worried: But it aint...a hell of a lot of truth therein despite your whining and unprofessionalism.
The point I'm making by the way is the fact that your ether baby generally supports what GR does, so you need to support it for that reason.
Yet you remain silent against the trolls and religious fanatics here that deny those results at every turn, rather giving me your unprofessional approach because I question your ether hypothetical and remind you of exactly how its been received: You further claim it does more than GR, then dig into conspiracy stories like our god bothering friends and trolls re the recalcitrant nature of mainstream because no one has picked up on it, while all the time whinging re my supposed "adhoms" as per your definition, as against your own "adhoms" that are not adhoms again re your definition.

Anyway enough of that!
The OP and following paper is known speculative research into matters and areas that still remain as uncertain. No one has denied that, yet we get your unprofessional approach again, commenting on the "EP=EPR" when its use was obvious." yet you tried to tear down the OP and paper, based on that fraudulent argument by yourself.
"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 year describing quantum entanglement".
In other words comparing two papers.

And finally my claim still stands that no physicist worth his salt or even not worth his salt, has said that categorically worm holes do not exist.

 

[Schmelzer]

The point I'm making by the way is the fact that your ether baby generally supports what GR does, so you need to support it for that reason.

It is the other way. I'm not an experimenter, and, given the usual subdivision of work in science, I accept what the experimenters tell us. If my ether theory would fail to agree with that, I would throw it away. As I had to throw away, many times during the development of my ether theory, the many earlier variants of it.

Yet you remain silent against the trolls and religious fanatics here that deny those results at every turn, rather giving me your unprofessional approach because I question your ether hypothetical and remind you of exactly how its been received: You further claim it does more than GR, then dig into conspiracy stories ...

Again, I do not have to argue with every crank. If I prefer to ignore crank, I ignore him. You have no idea about what is professional and what is unprofessional, so I would recommend you not to use this word in your argumentation. And learn at least the original meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Except you want to use it, like the CIA for JFK theories, for simple name-calling against non-mainstream theories.

"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 year describing quantum entanglement".
In other words comparing two papers.

No, this has nothing to do with "comparing two papers". It is a type of wild speculation which I would simply hide from everybody else if I would think about this myself, because it is yet much too vague to be taken seriously.

And finally my claim still stands that no physicist worth his salt or even not worth his salt, has said that categorically worm holes do not exist.

No reasonable scientist will use your beloved word "categorically", so this is a triviality. You can tell similarly that no serious scientist has said f...... wormholes exist. Or f..... wormholes do not exist. Simply because they don't use the f word in scientific conversations. And it is cheap because you add your "worth his salt" excuse, which would allow you, in case of confrontation with a quote, to say that this guy in not worth his salt.

 

[Farsight]

Schemlzer, you shouldn't waste your time with this popscience rubbish.

 

[paddoboy]

No reasonable scientist will use your beloved word "categorically", so this is a triviality. You can tell similarly that no serious scientist has said f...... wormholes exist. Or f..... wormholes do not exist.

Such obfuscation views laden with paltry, lame excuses actually reek throughout your political diatribe also.
But essentially you are correct and agree with what I have been saying from the beginning.....No scientists say worm holes categorically do exist: No scientists say categorically they do not exist: In essence then it's painfully obvious that we cannot be 100% sure as yet.
And my claim re your unprofessionalism is evidenced in the fact of the number of times you use the phrases, "So what?" or "who cares?" and your admitted "tit for tat" methodology.
And I see you have another less than professional "would be if he could be" supporting you.

 

[The God]

Paddoboy,

Do you understand what wormhole is ?

 

[The God]

Schemlzer, you shouldn't waste your time with this popscience rubbish.

Very cryptic! I am not able to figure out whether you are referring to the topic or .....

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

Do you understand what wormhole is ?

How many times have you seen the need to ask that?
Let me just reiterate, that you are the same person that has had many threads moved to alternatives, pseudo, and the cesspool, for the crank nonsense you post as science, and the denial of accepted science, such as cosmological redshifts, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, spacetime curvature, DM, BH's, the BB, Inflation, etc etc etc.....In fact from memory didn't rpenner run out of ink red-penning the error ridden nonsense in one of your threads removed from the sciences?
Yes, my friend, I know what a worm hole is, and I also know as everyone here knows, including the cranks, that while worm holes remain entirely speculative, and have never been seen as yet, that no physicist has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist. They are a solution of GR which has a pretty good, in fact near perfect track record.
Look at the situation we have at this time...spacetime is warped, curved, twisted, and creates gravitational waves, that are now all evidenced and accepted. Is it then terribly speculative to ask why worm holes could not be formed? Particularly in the quantum/Planck era where spacetime is speculated to be a seething foam of tiny miniscule bubbles spontaneously appearing and disappearing like the bubbles in the foam of a freshly poured beer.
All speculative stuff my friend, but as any science buff knows and any scientists knows, most all science starts of as speculation and the subject of research.....and we all nkow worm holes are still being researched and papers created on the subject all the time.

 

[Schmelzer]

And my claim re your unprofessionalism is evidenced in the fact of the number of times you use the phrases, "So what?" or "who cares?" and your admitted "tit for tat" methodology.

You think a professional has to care about all the various BS postet in forums? In this case, I don't want to be a "professional" in your sense.

And "tit for tat" is a general and reasonable human strategy. If you think professionals are forbidden to use them, I don't want to be a "professional" in your sense.

In above cases, we see that your "unprofessional" has nothing to do with absence of real professional behavior, but is yet another bad word you like to use because it sounds nice. Similar to the CIA-invented "conspiracy theory" soundbite. Even if the CIA has applied it much more reasonable, against JFK murder theories which have really assumed some conspiracy to murder JFK.

They are a solution of GR which has a pretty good, in fact near perfect track record.
Look at the situation we have at this time...spacetime is warped, curved, twisted, and creates gravitational waves, that are now all evidenced and accepted. Is it then terribly speculative to ask why worm holes could not be formed? Particularly in the quantum/Planck era where spacetime is speculated to be a seething foam of tiny miniscule bubbles spontaneously appearing and disappearing like the bubbles in the foam of a freshly poured beer.

For those who, for quasi-religious reasons, deny the existence of any yet unknown additional structures, like a fixed preferred background, it is even quite obligatory.

 

[The God]

How many times have you seen the need to ask that?
Let me just reiterate, that you are the same person that has had many threads moved to alternatives, pseudo, and the cesspool, for the crank nonsense you post as science, and the denial of accepted science, such as cosmological redshifts, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, spacetime curvature, DM, BH's, the BB, Inflation, etc etc etc.....In fact from memory didn't rpenner run out of ink red-penning the error ridden nonsense in one of your threads removed from the sciences?
Yes, my friend, I know what a worm hole is, and I also know as everyone here knows, including the cranks, that while worm holes remain entirely speculative, and have never been seen as yet, that no physicist has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist. They are a solution of GR which has a pretty good, in fact near perfect track record.
Look at the situation we have at this time...spacetime is warped, curved, twisted, and creates gravitational waves, that are now all evidenced and accepted. Is it then terribly speculative to ask why worm holes could not be formed? Particularly in the quantum/Planck era where spacetime is speculated to be a seething foam of tiny miniscule bubbles spontaneously appearing and disappearing like the bubbles in the foam of a freshly poured beer.
All speculative stuff my friend, but as any science buff knows and any scientists knows, most all science starts of as speculation and the subject of research.....and we all nkow worm holes are still being researched and papers created on the subject all the time.

See you could not express what wormhole is.

Paddoboy, understand that just because any scientists worth his salt or sugar has not categorically stated that worm holes cannot exist, does not mean that they can.

Develop some basic decent argument skills. You are either pasting popo or abusing posters who speak with open mind.