I know it is a long video, but Professor Susskind has some very interesting, probing questions put to him by the audience.
Again enjoy!
This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
I know it is a long video, but Professor Susskind has some very interesting, probing questions put to him by the audience.
Again enjoy!
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Dear paddoboy,
If you still can't see it, I have poses a question )immediately below) which should hopefully highlight for you what and where the problem lies; I also hope you will this time read and understand properly, so that you may be spared next time from falling into the same bad logics again. Here is the flaw in your rationale; the question is:
How can you claim to know what my posts are "filled with" if you don't read them?----[See your faux pas, paddoboy?]
Your assessment is therefore irrelevant and obviously wrong given what I have posted for your benefit that is on science and on topic.
So what wrong impression are you laboring under there; and how on Earth did you come by that patently wrong impression there, paddoboy?
And did you really just write "back in the fold", dear paddoboy?!
Are you somehow under the impression that SCIENCE is a "fold"-dependent activity or understanding method?
If so, as it would appear to be, from that above comment and from all your emotional reactions and subjective beliefs and assertions to date, then that would explain your emotional, subjective, un-scientific posts and clutterings to date.
Drive carefully, paddoboy. Best.
Dear paddoboy,
Do you even see the self-contradiction and non-sequitur inherent your rationalization there, paddoboy?
If you still can't see it, I have poses a question )immediately below) which should hopefully highlight for you what and where the problem lies; I also hope you will this time read and understand properly, so that you may be spared next time from falling into the same bad logics again. Here is the flaw in your rationale; the question is:
How can you claim to know what my posts are "filled with" if you don't read them?----[See your faux pas, paddoboy?]
Your assessment is therefore irrelevant and obviously wrong given what I have posted for your benefit that is on science and on topic.
What I posted IS mainstream science supported observations, dear paddoboy! You've been given the necessary information to arrive at that same conclusion IF you had read it properly, or even at all.when you start posting reasonable science, that is supportable [mainstream or alternative] Then you'll be back in the fold again, OK?
Thank you expletive deleted: You take it easy now, I'll be gone a while as I need to pick up my beautiful wife from work.
So what wrong impression are you laboring under there; and how on Earth did you come by that patently wrong impression there, paddoboy?
And did you really just write "back in the fold", dear paddoboy?!
Are you somehow under the impression that SCIENCE is a "fold"-dependent activity or understanding method?
If so, as it would appear to be, from that above comment and from all your emotional reactions and subjective beliefs and assertions to date, then that would explain your emotional, subjective, un-scientific posts and clutterings to date.
Drive carefully, paddoboy. Best.
Last edited:
Not sure what our friend is up to, but I would probably hazard a guess and say more controversial anti mainstream unsupported, unqualified nonsense?
Obviously I believe the reason I am now ignoring his posts, is the continuing record of the same methodology over many months and particularly over the last week or two.
Let me list those.
[1] Making non mainstream claims [his right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of his posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to his credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept his non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
Why he is not getting any support on this either is the same reason he failed to get it on his other anti mainstream propaganda, and why reputable posters such as PhyBang, Dave and Schneibster, and why they each needed to take him to task on each of those rather strange interpretations that he was preaching.
Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open.
Unless of course someone is able to support any other stance with citations, links or references.
But obviously that will not happen.
In the mean time and in line with the scientific speculative nature of this thread, I have my own idea as follows.......
I will now use this speculative scientific subject of wormholes to elaborate on one of my own speculative ideas.
The spacetime curvature and density of BH's approach infinity at what we term the BH singularity, and where GR and the laws of physics are not applicable.
In saying that, physicists and cosmologists abhor these infinities, which suggests that a surface of sorts must exist at or specifically below the quantum/Planck level where GR does not apply.
Remembering that the Planck scale is simply a man made mathematical tool for sake of conveneince, that idea of a surface of sorts is possible.
But what if as spacetime curvature reached a certain degree and then formed the ERB and worm hole as discussed in the OP article and following paper?
It would also support the speculative scenario of "bubble universes" and applying the same principal to the BB, we could envisage that the BB is simply the outpouring or arse end of a BH in another universe.
The thing is while all this is speculative, something does happen, and an answer is available, not withstanding any mythical religious/god connotations of course.
Obviously I believe the reason I am now ignoring his posts, is the continuing record of the same methodology over many months and particularly over the last week or two.
Let me list those.
[1] Making non mainstream claims [his right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of his posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to his credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept his non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
Why he is not getting any support on this either is the same reason he failed to get it on his other anti mainstream propaganda, and why reputable posters such as PhyBang, Dave and Schneibster, and why they each needed to take him to task on each of those rather strange interpretations that he was preaching.
Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open.
Unless of course someone is able to support any other stance with citations, links or references.
But obviously that will not happen.
In the mean time and in line with the scientific speculative nature of this thread, I have my own idea as follows.......
I will now use this speculative scientific subject of wormholes to elaborate on one of my own speculative ideas.
The spacetime curvature and density of BH's approach infinity at what we term the BH singularity, and where GR and the laws of physics are not applicable.
In saying that, physicists and cosmologists abhor these infinities, which suggests that a surface of sorts must exist at or specifically below the quantum/Planck level where GR does not apply.
Remembering that the Planck scale is simply a man made mathematical tool for sake of conveneince, that idea of a surface of sorts is possible.
But what if as spacetime curvature reached a certain degree and then formed the ERB and worm hole as discussed in the OP article and following paper?
It would also support the speculative scenario of "bubble universes" and applying the same principal to the BB, we could envisage that the BB is simply the outpouring or arse end of a BH in another universe.
The thing is while all this is speculative, something does happen, and an answer is available, not withstanding any mythical religious/god connotations of course.
Last edited:
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Your opening was bad enough, but it gets even worse from there. You pretend that your own erroneous (because you won't read anything which is against your own self-absorbed 'beliefs' and uninformed opinion; which is why you still ignore and deny that my posts were on science and on topic and WERE supported by the mainstream, whereas your opinions and beliefs an assertions were NOT) and irrelevant subjective mis-assessments and mis-characterizations and mis-understandings are of any use or value to the actual science discussion.
Then you went on to compound your incompetent and unscientific post by making all sorts of 'stabs' at sciencey-sounding assertions and regurgitations which mean squat in a science discussion unless you have cogent scientifically tenable arguments to back them up; which you haven't----(unlike me who has already done so, but you won't read it and remain totally clueless about what you regurgitate above).
Dear paddoboy, seriously, and with as much kindness as anyone is capable of, I beseech you, for your own sake if no one else's, to please take the time to correct your own litany of failures and misunderstandings and beliefs before you again pretend to be in any position to even be close to relevant or objective let alone actually knowledgeable on the science being discussed or even the content of the links you post without realizing they support me not your bald assertions based on your own misunderstandings.
Please, take time out to re-adjust your modus operandi to suit a science site, paddoboy; with special attention to getting and then hopefully learning how to apply the scientific methodology to replace the 'un-scientific methodology' which has driven most of your mischaracterizations and attacks to date.
Thanks. Best.
Dear paddoboy, the very first line of your post tells it all. It demonstrates where your self-created problems mostly lay. You insist on not reading yet nevertheless offer uninformed opinion and guesses as if they had any currency as 'fact'.Not sure what our friend is up to, but I would probably hazard a guess and say more controversial anti mainstream unsupported, unqualified nonsense?
Obviously I believe the reason I am now ignoring his posts, is the continuing record of the same methodology over many months and particularly over the last week or two.
Let me list those.
[1] Making non mainstream claims [his right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of his posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to his credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept his non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
Why he is not getting any support on this either is the same reason he failed to get it on his other anti mainstream propaganda, and why reputable posters such as PhyBang, Dave and Schneibster, and why they each needed to take him to task on each of those rather strange interpretations that he was preaching.
Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open.
Unless of course someone is able to support any other stance with citations, links or references.
But obviously that will not happen.
In the mean time and in line with the scientific speculative nature of this thread, I have my own idea as follows.......
I will now use this speculative scientific subject of wormholes to elaborate on one of my own speculative ideas.
The spacetime curvature and density of BH's approach infinity at what we term the BH singularity, and where GR and the laws of physics are not applicable.
In saying that, physicists and cosmologists abhor these infinities, which suggests that a surface of sorts must exist at or specifically below the quantum/Planck level where GR does not apply.
Remembering that the Planck scale is simply a man made mathematical tool for sake of conveneince, that idea of a surface of sorts is possible.
But what if as spacetime curvature reached a certain degree and then formed the ERB and worm hole as discussed in the OP article and following paper?
It would also support the speculative scenario of "bubble universes" and applying the same principal to the BB, we could envisage that the BB is simply the outpouring or arse end of a BH in another universe.
The thing is while all this is speculative, something does happen, and an answer is available, not withstanding any mythical religious/god connotations of course.
Your opening was bad enough, but it gets even worse from there. You pretend that your own erroneous (because you won't read anything which is against your own self-absorbed 'beliefs' and uninformed opinion; which is why you still ignore and deny that my posts were on science and on topic and WERE supported by the mainstream, whereas your opinions and beliefs an assertions were NOT) and irrelevant subjective mis-assessments and mis-characterizations and mis-understandings are of any use or value to the actual science discussion.
Then you went on to compound your incompetent and unscientific post by making all sorts of 'stabs' at sciencey-sounding assertions and regurgitations which mean squat in a science discussion unless you have cogent scientifically tenable arguments to back them up; which you haven't----(unlike me who has already done so, but you won't read it and remain totally clueless about what you regurgitate above).
Dear paddoboy, seriously, and with as much kindness as anyone is capable of, I beseech you, for your own sake if no one else's, to please take the time to correct your own litany of failures and misunderstandings and beliefs before you again pretend to be in any position to even be close to relevant or objective let alone actually knowledgeable on the science being discussed or even the content of the links you post without realizing they support me not your bald assertions based on your own misunderstandings.
Please, take time out to re-adjust your modus operandi to suit a science site, paddoboy; with special attention to getting and then hopefully learning how to apply the scientific methodology to replace the 'un-scientific methodology' which has driven most of your mischaracterizations and attacks to date.
Thanks. Best.
Last edited:
Sure I read...plenty! I just draw the line at repetitive pretentious unsupported nonsense: And you may eventually finally realise that to keep on ignoring those facts is to lay open questions as to your credibility. Why are you unable to see that?
Sorry, that's as far as I got:
Let me again inform you as to why........................
[1] Making non mainstream claims [his right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of his posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to his credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept his non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
You "read plenty"? But ignore and/or misunderstand that MY posted comments, unlike YOUR beliefs and assertions, actually ARE supported by mainstream understandings about the unphysical nature of "wormhole" and "naked singularities" and "exotic energy" and "entanglement of two black holes" etc.
In short, mainstream supports MY observations regarding Susskind's speculations for his OP 'idea'; simply because his OP 'idea' must ultimately depend on things which don't and can't physically exist according to mainstream physics.
It has all been explained to you. Mainstream agrees with me, not you.
So if you have "read plenty", then you are willfully ignoring and denying or you just don't understand properly, or at all, any of the actual science and logics being discussed here or contained in your own links.
Take a breather from your current modus operandi, dear paddoboy.
Get up to speed with, and start applying objectively, the scientific methodology; in place of your current un-scientific one, based mainly on your emotional subjectivity and in denial 'methodology' which makes you miss what is being posted for your benefit. Thanks. Best.
Dear paddoboy, you can't have it both ways.Sure I read...plenty! I just draw the line at repetitive pretentious unsupported nonsense: And you may eventually finally realise that to keep on ignoring those facts is to lay open questions as to your credibility. Why are you unable to see that?
Sorry, that's as far as I got:
Let me again inform you as to why........................
[1] Making non mainstream claims [his right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of his posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to his credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept his non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.
You "read plenty"? But ignore and/or misunderstand that MY posted comments, unlike YOUR beliefs and assertions, actually ARE supported by mainstream understandings about the unphysical nature of "wormhole" and "naked singularities" and "exotic energy" and "entanglement of two black holes" etc.
In short, mainstream supports MY observations regarding Susskind's speculations for his OP 'idea'; simply because his OP 'idea' must ultimately depend on things which don't and can't physically exist according to mainstream physics.
It has all been explained to you. Mainstream agrees with me, not you.
So if you have "read plenty", then you are willfully ignoring and denying or you just don't understand properly, or at all, any of the actual science and logics being discussed here or contained in your own links.
Take a breather from your current modus operandi, dear paddoboy.
Get up to speed with, and start applying objectively, the scientific methodology; in place of your current un-scientific one, based mainly on your emotional subjectivity and in denial 'methodology' which makes you miss what is being posted for your benefit. Thanks. Best.
Ignoring again the continued nonsense, when Prof Link was posting for a short while he recommended the following site.......
https://www.quora.com/Did-Kip-Thorne-come-up-with-the-theory-of-wormholes
Richard Muller, ProfPhysics, UC Berkeley, author of "Now -The Physics of Time" (Norton, 2016)
The concept of a wormhole was proposed by Hermann Weyl in 1921. John Wheeler (Feynman's mentor) coined the term wormhole in 1957. But Thorne wrote one of the most important and widely used papers on wormholes in his 1988 paper, published (with several coauthors) in the most prestigious of physics journals Physical Review Letters, titled “Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition.” It was Thorne's paper that triggered the current science fiction fascination with wormholes.
Here's what I say about Thorne's work in my new book:
This was a highly technical and carefully written article, and it is probably the work most responsible for the widespread assumption that time travel through wormholes is possible—even though the authors don’t say that it is. They do suggest that a future highly developed civilization could, in principle, construct a wormhole connecting two different regions in both space and time. No practical method is proposed; the authors just argue that, with sufficient ability to garner huge resources of energy, nothing (well, almost nothing) in the known laws of physics prohibits doing it. Travel through their wormhole can go in either direction, so they argue that you can jump in and come out not only at a different place, but at a different time, even in the past.
It is the closest that serious physicists have ever come to suggesting a mechanism for a time machine. The authors conclude,"Consequently, at late times by traversing the wormhole from right mouth to left, one can travel backward in time … and thereby, perhaps, violate causality…."
[A] catch in the paper is that the wormhole is described as so unstable, so short-lived, that a person would not have sufficient time to travel through before the wormhole disappeared. There is a loophole: if physicists and engineers can figure out how to impart a “negative-energy density” to a large region of space, then the wormhole might endure. No way to do that is known, but nothing in physics absolutely rules it out, we think. With this requirement, however, the entire demonstration of the feasibility of stable wormholes has collapsed, independently of the other objections. It has become speculative, requiring new physics. The authors are clear about this. They state, “Whether wormholes can be created and maintained entails deep, ill-understood issues.” The existence of such wormholes is reminiscent of the possibility of tachyons: just because nothing in our current physics theory rules them out doesn’t mean that they do exist."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
But" I believe there possibilty or otherwise, can be summed up in the paper I recently linked to and the following quote......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
"Einstein’s theory of GR predicts that the structure and geometry of spacetime in the presence of matter is not rigid but is elastic and deformable".
Nice.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Kip-Thorne-come-up-with-the-theory-of-wormholes
Richard Muller, ProfPhysics, UC Berkeley, author of "Now -The Physics of Time" (Norton, 2016)
The concept of a wormhole was proposed by Hermann Weyl in 1921. John Wheeler (Feynman's mentor) coined the term wormhole in 1957. But Thorne wrote one of the most important and widely used papers on wormholes in his 1988 paper, published (with several coauthors) in the most prestigious of physics journals Physical Review Letters, titled “Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition.” It was Thorne's paper that triggered the current science fiction fascination with wormholes.
Here's what I say about Thorne's work in my new book:
This was a highly technical and carefully written article, and it is probably the work most responsible for the widespread assumption that time travel through wormholes is possible—even though the authors don’t say that it is. They do suggest that a future highly developed civilization could, in principle, construct a wormhole connecting two different regions in both space and time. No practical method is proposed; the authors just argue that, with sufficient ability to garner huge resources of energy, nothing (well, almost nothing) in the known laws of physics prohibits doing it. Travel through their wormhole can go in either direction, so they argue that you can jump in and come out not only at a different place, but at a different time, even in the past.
It is the closest that serious physicists have ever come to suggesting a mechanism for a time machine. The authors conclude,"Consequently, at late times by traversing the wormhole from right mouth to left, one can travel backward in time … and thereby, perhaps, violate causality…."
[A] catch in the paper is that the wormhole is described as so unstable, so short-lived, that a person would not have sufficient time to travel through before the wormhole disappeared. There is a loophole: if physicists and engineers can figure out how to impart a “negative-energy density” to a large region of space, then the wormhole might endure. No way to do that is known, but nothing in physics absolutely rules it out, we think. With this requirement, however, the entire demonstration of the feasibility of stable wormholes has collapsed, independently of the other objections. It has become speculative, requiring new physics. The authors are clear about this. They state, “Whether wormholes can be created and maintained entails deep, ill-understood issues.” The existence of such wormholes is reminiscent of the possibility of tachyons: just because nothing in our current physics theory rules them out doesn’t mean that they do exist."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
But" I believe there possibilty or otherwise, can be summed up in the paper I recently linked to and the following quote......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
"Einstein’s theory of GR predicts that the structure and geometry of spacetime in the presence of matter is not rigid but is elastic and deformable".
Nice.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Oh my! Dear paddoboy, you keep posting science fiction/fantasy stuff that even the professionals admit is just that and no more; but you willfully ignore and deny the science facts I posted and which are confirmed via mainstream quotes from your own references.
Dear dear paddoboy, what exactly is it about your emotional attachment to your own unsupported opinions? How did you become so emotionally 'invested' in your own cluttering and denying posting mania like that demonstrated in this thread?
You still totally refuse to acknowledging fairly the facts as stated by me, and as just confirmed again by your own links and quoted references. Why?
Is your need to attack others, regardless of being wrong yourself, so great that you are even prepared to go to lengths like this which make it so obvious that you do not understand the science and just stubbornly and unscientifically follow your personal beliefs and faith, right or wrong?
Please, paddoboy, stop the needless and painful cluttering; stop ignoring and denying what every onlooker here must by now see for themselves is correct from me, as confirmed by the links and quotes in your own posts. Please, it's too painful to see you like this. Think again about what you are doing here, dear paddoboy. Please.
And who is continuing that nonsense, dear paddoboy? It is you; with yet another futile and cluttering post that actually confirms what I have said about the wormhole etc unphysical speculative nature, for the reasons I stated and just restated by your own quoted piece.
Oh my! Dear paddoboy, you keep posting science fiction/fantasy stuff that even the professionals admit is just that and no more; but you willfully ignore and deny the science facts I posted and which are confirmed via mainstream quotes from your own references.
Dear dear paddoboy, what exactly is it about your emotional attachment to your own unsupported opinions? How did you become so emotionally 'invested' in your own cluttering and denying posting mania like that demonstrated in this thread?
You still totally refuse to acknowledging fairly the facts as stated by me, and as just confirmed again by your own links and quoted references. Why?
Is your need to attack others, regardless of being wrong yourself, so great that you are even prepared to go to lengths like this which make it so obvious that you do not understand the science and just stubbornly and unscientifically follow your personal beliefs and faith, right or wrong?
Please, paddoboy, stop the needless and painful cluttering; stop ignoring and denying what every onlooker here must by now see for themselves is correct from me, as confirmed by the links and quotes in your own posts. Please, it's too painful to see you like this. Think again about what you are doing here, dear paddoboy. Please.
No, it is you as others have noted previously and for all the reasons I have stated.
Rest of your nonsense ignored.
If you want credibility for a change then back up what you claim as your own say so is not worth much.
Just quickly again expletive deleted for your benefit, wormholes are a speculative solution of GR.
They have never as yet been observed, and despite obvious problems with their nature, no reputable physicist would say that they categorically that they do not exist.
That's the general position at this time so the best we can really say about the possibilty of their existence, is we don't really know.
Here's another paper on the subject.......
The paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...1892CCCFD9B5819414C.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Impact of curvature divergences on physical observers in a wormhole space–time with horizons:
Abstract
The impact of curvature divergences on physical observers in a black hole space–time, which, nonetheless, is geodesically complete is investigated. This space–time is an exact solution of certain extensions of general relativity coupled to Maxwell's electrodynamics and, roughly speaking, consists of two Reissner–Nordström (or Schwarzschild or Minkowski) geometries connected by a spherical wormhole near the center. We find that, despite the existence of infinite tidal forces, causal contact is never lost among the elements making up the observer. This suggests that curvature divergences may not be as pathological as traditionally thought.
They have never as yet been observed, and despite obvious problems with their nature, no reputable physicist would say that they categorically that they do not exist.
That's the general position at this time so the best we can really say about the possibilty of their existence, is we don't really know.
Here's another paper on the subject.......
The paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...1892CCCFD9B5819414C.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Impact of curvature divergences on physical observers in a wormhole space–time with horizons:
Abstract
The impact of curvature divergences on physical observers in a black hole space–time, which, nonetheless, is geodesically complete is investigated. This space–time is an exact solution of certain extensions of general relativity coupled to Maxwell's electrodynamics and, roughly speaking, consists of two Reissner–Nordström (or Schwarzschild or Minkowski) geometries connected by a spherical wormhole near the center. We find that, despite the existence of infinite tidal forces, causal contact is never lost among the elements making up the observer. This suggests that curvature divergences may not be as pathological as traditionally thought.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Ease up on the subjective emotional knee jerking and personal disparagement, dear paddoboy; or it will end badly for your own credibility and understanding. Best.
Dear paddoboy, your own links and quoted references have been confirming what I said was correct and you wrong.
That kind of willfull mischaracterization, and emotionally driven denial, of important facts posted by others, is what leads you to believe and act so unscientifically and irrationally.
It is your credibility at risk by your own typing hand, dear paddoboy. Your own references back me up and contradict your own beliefs and assertions based on your preference for science fiction/fantasy over scientific fact and reason.
Ease up on the subjective emotional knee jerking and personal disparagement, dear paddoboy; or it will end badly for your own credibility and understanding. Best.
No they all confirm what I've been saying all along...
Wormholes are a speculative solution of GR.
They have never as yet been observed, and despite obvious problems with their nature, no reputable physicist would say that they categorically that they do not exist.
That's the general position at this time so the best we can really say about the possibilty of their existence, is we don't really know.
All you need do is support your stance, simple as that, and remember, a point you can never dispute and I'm sure you wouldn't, both you and I, will be judged by our peers: Obviously you agree, correct?
The following interesting article also discusses the hypothetical existence of worm holes.
[actually makes some sense since it eliminates the BH and BB singularity and very similar to my own speculative scenaro at post 43:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Black_Holes_Might_Not_be_Dead_ends_After_All_999.html
Black Holes Might Not be Dead-ends After Allby Staff WritersLisbon Portugal (SPX) Jun 09, 2016
File image.
A physical body might be able to cross a wormhole, in spite of the extreme tidal forces, suggests a new study by Rubiera-Garcia, of Instituto de Astrofisica e Ciencias do Espaco (IA , and his team. This result, published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, is supported by the fact that the interactions between the different parts of the body, which hold it together, are preserved. The team was invited by the journal editors to write an insight article that was published online this week.
In their previous work, the authors arrived at theoretical descriptions of black holes without a singularity, that bizarre and infinitesimally small point where space and time ends abruptly. What they found at the centre of a black hole, and without actually being in search of one, was a spherical and finite size wormhole structure.
more at link:
[actually makes some sense since it eliminates the BH and BB singularity and very similar to my own speculative scenaro at post 43:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Black_Holes_Might_Not_be_Dead_ends_After_All_999.html
Black Holes Might Not be Dead-ends After Allby Staff WritersLisbon Portugal (SPX) Jun 09, 2016
File image.
A physical body might be able to cross a wormhole, in spite of the extreme tidal forces, suggests a new study by Rubiera-Garcia, of Instituto de Astrofisica e Ciencias do Espaco (IA , and his team. This result, published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, is supported by the fact that the interactions between the different parts of the body, which hold it together, are preserved. The team was invited by the journal editors to write an insight article that was published online this week.
In their previous work, the authors arrived at theoretical descriptions of black holes without a singularity, that bizarre and infinitesimally small point where space and time ends abruptly. What they found at the centre of a black hole, and without actually being in search of one, was a spherical and finite size wormhole structure.
more at link:
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Why do you keep posting stuff that only confirms I'm right and you wrong, paddoboy? Is it because you don't understand even that quoted passage in your post above? Didn't you understand what "certain extensions" of general relativity means? It means mathematical 'mathturbations' having no connection to real physical domains of applicability which GR is limited to if it is to make any physical sense. Do you understand that its all mathematical abstraction and speculative fantasy scenarios and interpretations that leave real world possibilities behind in the dust? Why do you prefer such drivel over real facts and physical possibilities? Are you a wannabe science fiction/fantasy writer by profession by any chance? That is the only thing that makes sense of this penchant of yours for fantasy in lieu of facts. Please curb your fantasies and take a moment to actually understand the real scientific hypotheses and theories which are the only way to understand out REAL universe. Best.
The most incredible aspect of course of the possible existence of worm holes, is the thought of time travel
here Kip Thorne discusses that........
http://www.space.com/28000-physicist-kip-thorne-wildest-theories.html
Wormholes for time travel
: Theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, who helped bring real science to the movie "Interstellar.
When Thorne began to consider the likelihood that wormholes could be used for space travel, he realized that they could also be used for time travel.
In his 1994 book "Black Holes and Time Warps" (W.W. Norton & Co. 1994), Thorne proposes a thought experiment: Say he obtains a small wormhole, which connects two points in space as if they were not separated by any distance at all. [What's New in Black Holes? A conversation with Kip Thorne]
Thorne takes his wormhole and puts one end in his living room, and the other aboard a spaceship parked in his front yard. Thorne's wife, Carolee, hops aboard the spaceship to prepare for a trip. The two don't have to say goodbye, though, because no matter how far away Coralee travels, they can see each other through the wormhole. They can even hold hands, as if through an open doorway.
more at link:
here Kip Thorne discusses that........
http://www.space.com/28000-physicist-kip-thorne-wildest-theories.html
Wormholes for time travel
: Theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, who helped bring real science to the movie "Interstellar.
When Thorne began to consider the likelihood that wormholes could be used for space travel, he realized that they could also be used for time travel.
In his 1994 book "Black Holes and Time Warps" (W.W. Norton & Co. 1994), Thorne proposes a thought experiment: Say he obtains a small wormhole, which connects two points in space as if they were not separated by any distance at all. [What's New in Black Holes? A conversation with Kip Thorne]
Thorne takes his wormhole and puts one end in his living room, and the other aboard a spaceship parked in his front yard. Thorne's wife, Carolee, hops aboard the spaceship to prepare for a trip. The two don't have to say goodbye, though, because no matter how far away Coralee travels, they can see each other through the wormhole. They can even hold hands, as if through an open doorway.
more at link:
Last edited:
The book mentioned in the above post [ "Black Holes and Time Warps"] is a great read. Not too mathematical, and plenty of illustrations explaining.
I recommend it strongly.
Another that broaches the subject is a bit more mathematical by Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman called "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" more on BH's in particular then wormholes.
I recommend it strongly.
Another that broaches the subject is a bit more mathematical by Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman called "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" more on BH's in particular then wormholes.
expletives deleted:
But perhaps you have the necessary disproof of wormholes or exotic matter. Got a link?
Regarding the science/pseudoscience demarcation you seem to be attempting to make in this thread, notice that many professional physicists have published on that topic in peer-reviewed publications. If "wormhole physics" is obviously pseudoscience, as you appear to be suggesting, then why are so many professional scientists interested in the topic? Can you suggest a reason?
As I understand it, wormhole solutions are legitimate solutions of the equations of general relativity. Now, you might certainly object that "exotic energy" might not exist in the "real" universe (or that it might be impossible to create it), but unless you can actually show that such a thing is impossible then it remains an open possibility. Agreed?
But perhaps you have the necessary disproof of wormholes or exotic matter. Got a link?
Regarding the science/pseudoscience demarcation you seem to be attempting to make in this thread, notice that many professional physicists have published on that topic in peer-reviewed publications. If "wormhole physics" is obviously pseudoscience, as you appear to be suggesting, then why are so many professional scientists interested in the topic? Can you suggest a reason?
This missive to paddoboy would perhaps better be sent by Private Conversation. It seems like a personal letter to paddoboy, rather than a comment on the thread topic.
In fact, better advice might be that personal comments of this type are probably best avoided all together, since they can so easily be taken as insults.
It seems to me, expletives deleted, that if paddoboy wanted your advice regarding his posting style and the topics he chooses to post about, he would ask for it.
What do you think?
Just quickly before we get onto the subject matter.....
From James'above post, it seems expletive deleted is still confused re his story " You pretend that your own erroneous (because you won't read anything which is against your own self-absorbed 'beliefs' and uninformed opinion; which is why you still ignore"
Again let me put your story to sleep, again.
I read plenty, and will continue to read plenty and also learn as I go. At this time though I am ignoring your oft repeated fabricated nonsense. So please don't be confused.
From James'above post, it seems expletive deleted is still confused re his story " You pretend that your own erroneous (because you won't read anything which is against your own self-absorbed 'beliefs' and uninformed opinion; which is why you still ignore"
Again let me put your story to sleep, again.
I read plenty, and will continue to read plenty and also learn as I go. At this time though I am ignoring your oft repeated fabricated nonsense. So please don't be confused.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ James R:
Since you asked me to say what I think re the above advice, the following is what I think, James R.
Re advice from moderators re appropriate mode of communication with others for resolution disagreements; and re the tone and style of the post and its content:
I was advised to "just press the Report button, don't engage".
When I followed that advice, I was then re-advised "sort it out in the thread" instead.
Now that I am trying to do just that, I am re-re-advised to use the Private Conversation route.
The problem is the mixed messages issuing from across the various moderatos advising from time to time.
And re the Private Conversation route:
Given how paddoboy has a bad habit of mischaracterizing others words and intents, even in open forum, as many have remarked upon, I am wary of engaging him via Private Conversations which may open a whole other can of worms for moderators. Eg, if a dispute arises as to who said what, it would require even more problematic resolution processes. Which would complicate the present open-forum back-and-forth even further as 'rules of confidentiality' and 'moderator intervention' get dragged into it even more (because the only way then to settle who said what in Private Conversation, would be to do exactly what we are doing now, putting it all in open forum, so that no additional disputes arise involving Private Conversations on top of what already arose in the open forum).
And even in my Private Conversations with moderators, it has become clear to me that prejudicial general impressions and inter-moderator issues etc produce mischaracterized and bedside-the-point 'decisions' from whatever moderator is left holding the bag when the Report blizzards have to be 'cleared up' even when time and investigation resources are insufficient and or unwilling to be applied to actually understand the full situation before responding to the reported issue.
As for the style and content angle:
I am frankly nonplussed to hear the 'one sided' view you just expressed, James R. Given paddoboy's frequent and unrelenting habit of dragging in personal and off-topic irrelevancies and accusations and other subjective matter totally beside the point of the OP and/or other posters discussion points; and given you and other moderators have had occasion to warn paddoboy about that very thing too many times (and he has ignored your warnings, as can be seen even in this thread), then I am flabbergasted that you now select ME for admonition instead of paddoboy, who as usual was the instigator of such exchanges in this thread also.
As for the potential for comments being taken as insults:
Again, I have merely responded to what the INSTIGATOR has already done 'in spades' (and not as politely or reasonably as I did in response!). His constant use of 'familiarity' and demeaning characterizations and downright lying about the person he is insulting, is there for all to see, and has been too often the cause of much of the reports and the trouble that arises when paddoboy enters a thread in his usual manner that usually ends up reported and so dragging in moderators who have better things to do with their their valuable time.
And as for paddoboy's posting style, it seems too kind a characterization that you made there, James R. It is not a question of "style" at all, but rather a question of "tactics" now patently obvious to you and everyone who has had to suffer from same from paddoboy. And those "tactics" are: cluttering with appeals to Authority, even appeals which are beside the point under discussion!; and mischaracterizing what was said or claimed (even when no claim was actually made!); and dragging in irrelevant off-topic personal issues, people and thread topics that have no bearing on the thread/topic being discussed currently.
In light of the above, I find it disheartening to see my own polite and reasonable efforts, to hopefully encourage paddoboy to tone down his irrelevant, antagonistic and personal tactics which derails discussions and eventually ends up in Reports which moderators could better do without, to be singled out without even an acknowledgement as to who the INSTIGATOR usually is in most such situations!
As for "gratuious advice": James R, you yourself, and other moderators, as well as the membership at large, surely must by now be aware of the practically continuous stream, across many threads, over the past months (years even?), of disparaging, insulting and "gratuitous advice" from paddoboy:
- advising everyone that Sciforums is not the site to do or discuss serious science issues and ideas!
- advising posters to go and publish elsewhere and not bother to discuss here!
- advising anyone who will listen that if it ain't mainstream it ain't science!
- etcetera and ad nauseam!
Anyway, James R, you know I have tried to be reasonable regarding paddoboy; but nothing seems to work; it always ends up 'blowing back' on the complainant and paddoboy is somehow 'excused' one way or other by the moderators, and the complainant is the one forced to explain himself...and then when he does it is used as an excuse to further complicate the complainants situation, because it is characterized as "whinging' and 'wasting time of moderators' etc, while the INSTIGATOR is given every latitude re the rules and the complaint process!
It is exasperating to say the least, James R. That is the problem. Even when the exasperation is left out of my efforts to make paddoboy be more reasonable, it is ME that is the one you pick for 'advising' instead of correcting the instigator! It is this sort of one-sided treatment by moderators that has obviously emboldened paddoboy because he feels 'protected' and his targets 'vulnerable'; and you see what comes of protecting instigators and castigating those who merely want to see more reasonable and on science discussion without constantly having a barrage of irrelevancies and personal distractions descend on the threads from paddoboy. You know this is the main problem, since he has been warned about that many times. But evidently, moderator warnings to paddoboy seem futile; since he just ignores them as mere 'slaps on the wrist' from 'friendly' moderators; whom he knows full well must be protecting him, otherwise he would have been banned long ago as others have for much, much, less (it must be asked: has he friends among the moderators who may have a conflict of interest or may be 'put on the spot' in their relationship with him if he is treated equally as others have been and banned?).
That is what I think; since you asked. If such response was through Private Conversation or Report, it would just have been filed away under time wasting and whinging, and paddoboy would again be free to continue his incitements and instigations. It is most unfair and disheartening to say the least, James R. But thanks for the open forum request to say what I think about it; as that is the only route that can be totally trusted to be seen as it is and not as micharacterized by some back room person who may not even read it properly or been biased etc. With the utmost respect, James R, that is what I think about it. I am trying to be reasonable against most unreasonable provocation and situation as described above.
Thanks. Best to you and fellow moderators and staff.
Since you asked me to say what I think re the above advice, the following is what I think, James R.
Re advice from moderators re appropriate mode of communication with others for resolution disagreements; and re the tone and style of the post and its content:
I was advised to "just press the Report button, don't engage".
When I followed that advice, I was then re-advised "sort it out in the thread" instead.
Now that I am trying to do just that, I am re-re-advised to use the Private Conversation route.
The problem is the mixed messages issuing from across the various moderatos advising from time to time.
And re the Private Conversation route:
Given how paddoboy has a bad habit of mischaracterizing others words and intents, even in open forum, as many have remarked upon, I am wary of engaging him via Private Conversations which may open a whole other can of worms for moderators. Eg, if a dispute arises as to who said what, it would require even more problematic resolution processes. Which would complicate the present open-forum back-and-forth even further as 'rules of confidentiality' and 'moderator intervention' get dragged into it even more (because the only way then to settle who said what in Private Conversation, would be to do exactly what we are doing now, putting it all in open forum, so that no additional disputes arise involving Private Conversations on top of what already arose in the open forum).
And even in my Private Conversations with moderators, it has become clear to me that prejudicial general impressions and inter-moderator issues etc produce mischaracterized and bedside-the-point 'decisions' from whatever moderator is left holding the bag when the Report blizzards have to be 'cleared up' even when time and investigation resources are insufficient and or unwilling to be applied to actually understand the full situation before responding to the reported issue.
As for the style and content angle:
I am frankly nonplussed to hear the 'one sided' view you just expressed, James R. Given paddoboy's frequent and unrelenting habit of dragging in personal and off-topic irrelevancies and accusations and other subjective matter totally beside the point of the OP and/or other posters discussion points; and given you and other moderators have had occasion to warn paddoboy about that very thing too many times (and he has ignored your warnings, as can be seen even in this thread), then I am flabbergasted that you now select ME for admonition instead of paddoboy, who as usual was the instigator of such exchanges in this thread also.
As for the potential for comments being taken as insults:
Again, I have merely responded to what the INSTIGATOR has already done 'in spades' (and not as politely or reasonably as I did in response!). His constant use of 'familiarity' and demeaning characterizations and downright lying about the person he is insulting, is there for all to see, and has been too often the cause of much of the reports and the trouble that arises when paddoboy enters a thread in his usual manner that usually ends up reported and so dragging in moderators who have better things to do with their their valuable time.
And as for paddoboy's posting style, it seems too kind a characterization that you made there, James R. It is not a question of "style" at all, but rather a question of "tactics" now patently obvious to you and everyone who has had to suffer from same from paddoboy. And those "tactics" are: cluttering with appeals to Authority, even appeals which are beside the point under discussion!; and mischaracterizing what was said or claimed (even when no claim was actually made!); and dragging in irrelevant off-topic personal issues, people and thread topics that have no bearing on the thread/topic being discussed currently.
In light of the above, I find it disheartening to see my own polite and reasonable efforts, to hopefully encourage paddoboy to tone down his irrelevant, antagonistic and personal tactics which derails discussions and eventually ends up in Reports which moderators could better do without, to be singled out without even an acknowledgement as to who the INSTIGATOR usually is in most such situations!
As for "gratuious advice": James R, you yourself, and other moderators, as well as the membership at large, surely must by now be aware of the practically continuous stream, across many threads, over the past months (years even?), of disparaging, insulting and "gratuitous advice" from paddoboy:
- advising everyone that Sciforums is not the site to do or discuss serious science issues and ideas!
- advising posters to go and publish elsewhere and not bother to discuss here!
- advising anyone who will listen that if it ain't mainstream it ain't science!
- etcetera and ad nauseam!
Anyway, James R, you know I have tried to be reasonable regarding paddoboy; but nothing seems to work; it always ends up 'blowing back' on the complainant and paddoboy is somehow 'excused' one way or other by the moderators, and the complainant is the one forced to explain himself...and then when he does it is used as an excuse to further complicate the complainants situation, because it is characterized as "whinging' and 'wasting time of moderators' etc, while the INSTIGATOR is given every latitude re the rules and the complaint process!
It is exasperating to say the least, James R. That is the problem. Even when the exasperation is left out of my efforts to make paddoboy be more reasonable, it is ME that is the one you pick for 'advising' instead of correcting the instigator! It is this sort of one-sided treatment by moderators that has obviously emboldened paddoboy because he feels 'protected' and his targets 'vulnerable'; and you see what comes of protecting instigators and castigating those who merely want to see more reasonable and on science discussion without constantly having a barrage of irrelevancies and personal distractions descend on the threads from paddoboy. You know this is the main problem, since he has been warned about that many times. But evidently, moderator warnings to paddoboy seem futile; since he just ignores them as mere 'slaps on the wrist' from 'friendly' moderators; whom he knows full well must be protecting him, otherwise he would have been banned long ago as others have for much, much, less (it must be asked: has he friends among the moderators who may have a conflict of interest or may be 'put on the spot' in their relationship with him if he is treated equally as others have been and banned?).
That is what I think; since you asked. If such response was through Private Conversation or Report, it would just have been filed away under time wasting and whinging, and paddoboy would again be free to continue his incitements and instigations. It is most unfair and disheartening to say the least, James R. But thanks for the open forum request to say what I think about it; as that is the only route that can be totally trusted to be seen as it is and not as micharacterized by some back room person who may not even read it properly or been biased etc. With the utmost respect, James R, that is what I think about it. I am trying to be reasonable against most unreasonable provocation and situation as described above.
Thanks. Best to you and fellow moderators and staff.
Last edited: