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

[paddoboy]

.

Briefly stated: wormholes probably don’t exist in real life, for a wide variety of reasons from general relativity and quantum physics.

And that's why I posted the views at post 61:
And of course no one worth his salt will say that they categorically do not exists, agreed?

 

[expletives deleted]

@ James R:

expletives deleted:

Regarding your concerns about moderation, as it happens, I have recently had an almost mirror-image exchange by private messaging about such things with paddoboy. You two are perhaps more alike than you realise.

Not so, by any stretch. Paddoboy from day one of my joining set in immediately telling me who I should or should not converse with and how, trying to prejudice me against other members based on his own personal likes and disikes and (as it turned out0, on his many misundertandings on the science and inimical interactions with the person based on beliefs and other personal things irrelevant to actual science points under discussion. Whereas I have never done that or would ever presume to do that, because I just want on science fair discourse without his usual personal attacks and irrelevances tactics. So right from the start, the difference in character and intent between paddoboy and myself could not be more evident for anyone who is aware of all the facts re that.

Ordinarily, I would prefer to do this by private conversation, but since you have chosen to do it publically I will make a few brief comments here.


What you see as mixed messages possibly comes from a confusion you may have regarding what issues are appropriate for discussion in the public forums and what issues are appropriate to refer to moderators.

I assure you that that distinction was always understood by me. Perhaps it is the assumptions brought by the moderators reading my reports that gave them the impression that was not already nderstood by me? But, be that as it may.

If another member clearly breaches our site posting guidelines in some way, it may be appropriate to draw the matter to the attention of the moderators using the "report" function. Thus, for example, if a member were to call you names or insult you, or to post spam or hate speech, you would be well advised to hit the "report" button and let the moderators attend to the matter. We advise, for example, that if another member tells you to go and fornicate with yourself, you should not get angry and respond in kind, because doing so may result in both of you receiving official warnings.

Insulting and other personal irrelevant comments, mischaracterizations, misattributions is exactly what paddoboy has done time and again, across many threads. Moreover, he posts repetitively and gratuitously his personal opinions and assertions and appeals to authority which only serve to bury the narrative in his blizzard os distractiion from the actual point and narrative of the discussion. You've seen that and warned him before for that and more. To no avail it seems, since it seems to be quickly forgotten by you and other moderators when it comes to excusing the instigator while advising the reporter of that behavior.

On the other hand, if a member merely posts on-topic about something with which you happen to disagree, appropriate courses of action might be (a)to ignore it; or (b) respond on-topic in the relevant thread, without breaching the site rules (of course). You might, for example, choose to argue the point, without insulting the other member, of course. It would not be appropriate in these circumstances to hit "report" and complain to the moderators that "The member is obviously trolling the thread by posting incorrect information. Please correct him. We can't allow this pseudoscientific nonsense/lies here." If you were to hit "report" in this kind of of example, a moderator might well tell to you "sort it out in the thread".

It's not a question of correcting, its a question of pointing out that his blizzard of bald, irrelevant personal and attacks and opinions have nothing to do with the science being discussed. And when he is asked to keep on point and on science, he just accelerates the rate of RE-posting his irrelevant, opinionated and personal beliefs which were already made clear and didn't have to be repeated ad nauseam; or accelerates his dragging into an exchange other people who are not party to the relevant exchange, also other issues from other threads which are off-topic and only confuse and bury the actual on point discussion.

See the distinction? In one case, you would be referring a breach of the site rules to moderators for attention. In the other case you would be having a disagreement about a topic, within the site rules, which does not require moderator intervention.

Again, please be assured that such distinctions are no problem for me to discern. Perhaps you would be better to direct that enquiry to paddoboy, since he has demonstrated repeatedly that he misses subtle (and even many cases even obvious) distinctions not only in the rules but also in the science issues being discussed (and even in his own linked references and quotes).

In our posting guidelines, you will not find a rule that says that a poster must be correct about things. We don't moderate people just because they are wrong about something, and you (generic "you") shouldn't expect us to. If you have a disagreement, you ought to be able to resolve it in a reasonable fashion in the thread. Ideally, this is a site for adults who can self-regulate and carry on a courteous conversation, even when they disagree. Moderators step in only when certain members turn out to be unable to control themselves and when they forget that there's a human being on the other end of their internet connection.

The "correctness" i am interested in is the behavior against the rules and against the discussion on science narrative. That is my only concern. The "correctness" of whatever on science comment or point is, and always has been for me, something which I have always left to the discussion itself (which would be better and more clear if paddoboy's personal irrelevances and assertions and appeals to authority were kept out of it).

I trust that subtle but important distinction, as to which "correctness" I am interested in, has been clarified for you and other moderators who may read any Future Reports from me (which I hope and trust, after this discussion with you, will turn out to be rare or even non-existent).

CONTINUED NEXT POST

 

[paddoboy]

the way the new paper treats dark matter contradicts a lot of research in cosmology, and flatly is ruled out by existing observations in the Milky Way.
- ^^above quoted^^ from : https://galileospendulum.org/2015/01/26/why-wormholes-probably-dont-exist/

Well the rantings of anyone on any blog can be taken with a grain of salt when compared to a scientific paper. and again please note his use of the word [probably]
But at least you have tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual: That's a start. Good.

 

[expletives deleted]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST TO JAMES R:

What we (the moderators) are finding of late is that we are receiving a truly extraordinary number of reports from just a handful of posters. And we're also finding that even when there are legitimate breaches of our posting guidelines reported by a member, it often turns out on closer examination that the reporting member has breached the same guidelines in a similar manner to the person they are reporting.

I am only interested in the case between me and paddoboy as reported. Any 'general impression' upon which moderators are currently working is not helpful when the actual situation is being misunderstood due to generalizations of this kind which should be anathema to the process of fair adjudication of the instance at hand. Maybe one should stop to consider the possibility that, perhaps, it is such generalizations based impressions generating not-fully-informed moderator actions, that have exacerbated and allowed the paddoboy problem to grow such a pass that almost every interesting thread and discussion is buried and derailed as many have commented upon and even you have noticed and warned him about in the recent past (to no corrective effect it seems)?

Now, as moderators, in such situations we have two choices: (1) we can moderate all parties who turn out to have breached our guidelines, which could include the original reportee and reporter, or (2) we can reject the report, essentially saying "you're in no position to expect somebody else to be punished for behaviour that you are also engaging in". Often, moderators tend to opt for solution (2) rather than (1), which is actually a favour to the "combatants" who are trying to use the moderators as weapons in their personal battles. It also makes our lives a little easier, because we don't have to deal with the more insistent complaints that we tend to get from certain people who believe the rules should only apply to others and not to them. But we're currently considering making it a policy to adopt approach (1) as a default rule, because that's what the most prolific reporters here seem to want - even though to us it appears like those people are potentially undermining their own interests. So, we might see how that goes for a while. I suspect that certain people will be unhappy.

Yes, I understand the difficulty and the approach. But consider the "common denominator" INSTIGATOR of the reported problems (in the science threads which I am only interested in)? I have tried the polite and tolerant approach; even the ignoring approach. But the problem of irrelevance, attacks and off-topic material burying and derailing any discussion I am interested in is becoming more than just the 'ordinary' case. Sure both parties to constant bickering should be brought to heel; but the case here is that I DON"T WANT TO be involved in paddoboy's bickering instigations. He posts micharacterizations and inciting stuff (like invoking gods and demons etc when I am an ATHEIST and a scientist interested only in the science; and not interested in his personal distractions and agendas which almost invariably posts across threads; and not in his assertions and appeals to authority which he admitted to often not misunderstanding the subtleties of and so just expresses ad nauseam his 'belief in their inerrancy etc while because he patently cannot provide a cogent scientific argument of his own on the scientific point).

Private conversations are private. Moderators cannot read your private conversations. Interactions between members in private conversations are just like emailing each other, in effect. It would be an extraordinary circumstance in which we would ever delve into private conversations - probably it would have to involve actual threatening or otherwise illegal behaviour.

To put that a different way: don't complain to us about something somebody said in a private message. You are not obliged to receive private messages from anybody other than moderators, and you have the option of blocking any other member from contacting you.

That is not what I was trying to convey. My point was that I have avoided engaging in Private Conversations with paddoboy precisely because of his habit of mischaracterizing and bringing in personal issues which are irrelevant to the thread. And also because from day one he tried to prejudice me against his perceived 'enemies'. That immediately identified him to me as someone who should be avoided at all costs when it comes to Private Conversations which if he (and in keeping with character so far demonstrated, likely will) mischaracterizes then will require me in defense to ask moderators to post same in open forum to clear myself of any misimpression given by him. It was to AVOID having to ask moderators to intervene re Private Conversations with him that I avoid going that route with him. I trust that has clarified for you what I meant?

You should keep in mind that while you are obviously aware of what you report and how the moderators interact with you, you do not see the reports that other people make, or other people's interactions with moderators via private messaging or official warnings.

Of course I am aware of that situation; however, I sometimes get the impression that someone 'on staff' with whom paddoboy is on 'firndly terms' with may be feeding him info about what is going on (and is thus helping undermine reports against him? I have to trust that is not actually the case). But that is an impression gained after seeing paddoboy 'slapped on the wrist' while others have been warned and even banned for breaking the rules so often and in so many ways, in total disregard of your 'warnings' to him.

For example, you complain that paddoboy gets a "free ride" because you report him and your reports are sometimes rejected. And he makes exactly the same complaints about you. And you two are no the only ones who see things that way.

Just because "he makes exactly the same complaints" doesn't make those complaints supportable in fact. My complaints about him are about the very things you have warned him about before (without effect). Perhaps, instead of treating complaints 'just the usual two-way tactical wars etc', they may for a little while at least be considered on their individual merits that may differentiate better which complaints are frivolous and tactical, and which complaints have substance; for that is the only way to avoid moderators letting the situation get out of hand and encouraging the INSTIGATOR in most cases (at least in the science threads which I am only interested in).

You give the moderators too little credit if you believe we do not properly investigate the context in which a particular report is made, and therefore do not understand the "full situation". Our job is (again, ideally) to objectively evaluate the full situation and to consider both "sides" of a report where there is room for interpretation.

Not at all, I give credit as far as I can, knowing also that moderators are human, and general impressions combined with limited time or patience for deeper investigation into the full background to reported matter, may lead to moderator action/inaction which may have exacerbated the paddoboy problem which has become the most common denominator behind 'wasting' your time when it could be so easily avoided if timely and firm action was taken which would encourage the INSTIGATOR to desist doing so (again and again).


FURTHER CONTINUED NEXT POST

 

[expletives deleted]

CONTINUED FROM TWO PREVIOUS POSTS TO JAMES R:

And again, you might be surprised to learn that other people have made mirror-image comments about your "instigating" behaviour.

I am not surprised. Why should I be? That is part of the 'tactics' which I am complaining about that is used by others to attack and disparage others. That is not what I do. That is what others may do, but that's not my problem unless the moderators don't act to prevent such tactical character assassination based NOT on science but on the tactician's own personal issues which I want no part of, and have been trying to avoid by sticking to on science discussion unless and until paddoboy introduces his personal and irrelevant stuff which sometimes needs to be tackled right away lest the "wrong impression' he wishes to create in the mind of the reader/moderator may become difficult to dispel later (as has been the situation lately re impressions about me which have been insinuated over time by paddoboy's tactical mischaracterizations).

This is not a defence of paddoboy, by the way.

I took it at face value as intended by you in good faith. I trust that that sensible approach obtains in future in the minds of all the moderators. Thanks.

Also worth mentioning is that the self-justification from a participant in a flame war that "he started it first!" doesn't usually impress the moderators very much. The best time to report another member's bad behaviour is when one's own behaviour in respect of that member is beyond reproach. Otherwise, your report is prone to look self-serving.

The moderators are not fools. Our report and warning system is not an "extra" weapon to be used as part of one's arsenal in prosecuting a personal vendetta. But some members apparently think they can "game" us in that way.

--
I'm not sure whether this response helps you at all, but there it is.

I have often tried to avoid engaging his trolling etc behavior; you know this full well by now I trust. However it becomes unavoidable when my tolerance and politeness keeps being thrown back in my face and moderator inaction only further emboldens and magnifies his personally motivated and unwarranted irrelevant intrusions into my discussions with others. It is not a case of "he did it first", it is a case of "he does it time and again first", and every time I have tried to avoid it he does it more. I've tried every which way reasonable to NOT get dragged into his tactical crap. But to no avail. Perhaps if you stopped looking at this as the usual 'it takes two to tango' two-party problem in my case, you will see that, while it may be the case with others, I have tried NOT to engage with his behavior, hence my past reports in lieu of responding to his "doing it first" instigations.

Yes, it has been of much help to make clear what is and is not the situation at least as I am concerned. Nevertheless, it has also not yet helped much to solve the main 'problem' which/who appears to be the main common denominator 'doing it first' these situations.

I trust some good will come from our frank exchange on the matter, James R. Thank you for all your efforts, either way.

 

[paddoboy]

I DON"T WANT TO be involved in paddoboy's bickering instigations.

And yet you saw the need to come into this thread which I started, on some matter re wormholes that you have absolute no support for your stance and simply chose to again and again and again and again, to argue against reputable scientific articles and papers, and the known speculative nature of them.
Just one more comment before I butt out of your's and James " talk"

I have always left to the discussion itself (which would be better and more clear if paddoboy's personal irrelevances and assertions and appeals to authority were kept out of it).

In my mind its obvious what you are trying to do.
I've been watching you with your fairy tale stories about what you believe I do and what I don't do.
At this time, its water off a duck's back, as any fairy tale should be.
Let me state it again in no uncertain terms:
This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist: You are unable to show anything as yet to support that, and neither has dmoe.
Let's get it clear again, before you once again, run away with some wrong interpretation of what I am saying.
No physicists has categorically said that wormholes do not exist. Fact!
Other relevant facts as much as you prefer not to hear them, is that many of your "ideas""opinions"on 21st century cosmology are just plain wrong...DM, gravitational waves, cosmological redshift are three that come to mind. rpenner has issued you warnings and asked you to calm down and also pointed out errors in your assumptions, so to have schneibster, PhysBang and Dave, but none could sway you one iota.
yet strangely, like the current issue, you could support nothing of what you said, with any reputable links or citations.
Back on the current debate, and just as James has said: wormholes are a hypothetical, or as dmoe prefers, science fiction outcome and prediction of GR.
They have never been seen and we have absolutely no evidence for their existence.
But at one time we also had no evidence for BH,s spacetime curvature, DM, gravitational waves, and now all are accepted and/or confirmed within the defining aspect of what a scientific theory is.
So please, don't stand/sit there and say wormholes categorically do not exist.
Unless you can support such certainty with some reputable citation or link.
We just cannot at this time, be 100%sure...its as simple as that.

 

[expletives deleted]

CONTINUED STILL FURTHER as a 'PS' to MY PREVIOUS POSTS TO JAMES R:

PS: James, here is the latest example, just posted now, of paddoboy mischaracterizing my original contribution to the discussion of this thread OP 'idea' from Susskind:

I DON"T WANT TO be involved in paddoboy's bickering instigations.

And yet you saw the need to come into this thread which I started, on some matter re wormholes that you have absolute no support for your stance and simply chose to again and again and again and again, to argue against reputable scientific articles and papers, and the known speculative nature of them.
Just one more comment before I butt out of your's and James " talk"

I have always left to the discussion itself (which would be better and more clear if paddoboy's personal irrelevances and assertions and appeals to authority were kept out of it).

In my mind its obvious what you are trying to do.
I've been watching you with your fairy tale stories about what you believe I do and what I don't do.
At this time, its water off a duck's back, as any fairy tale should be.
Let me state it again in no uncertain terms:
This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist: You are unable to show anything as yet to support that, and neither has dmoe.
Let's get it clear again, before you once again, run away with some wrong interpretation of what I am saying.
No physicists has categorically said that wormholes do not exist. Fact!
Other relevant facts as much as you prefer not to hear them, is that many of your "ideas""opinions"on 21st century cosmology are just plain wrong...DM, gravitational waves, cosmological redshift are three that come to mind. rpenner has issued you warnings and asked you to calm down and also pointed out errors in your assumptions, so to have schneibster, PhysBang and Dave, but none could sway you one iota.
yet strangely, like the current issue, you could support nothing of what you said, with any reputable links or citations.
Back on the current debate, and just as James has said: wormholes are a hypothetical, or as dmoe prefers, science fiction outcome and prediction of GR.
They have never been seen and we have absolutely no evidence for their existence.
But at one time we also had no evidence for BH,s spacetime curvature, DM, gravitational waves, and now all are accepted and/or confirmed within the defining aspect of what a scientific theory is.
So please, don't stand/sit there and say wormholes categorically do not exist.
Unless you can support such certainty with some reputable citation or link.
We just cannot at this time, be 100%sure...its as simple as that.

If you will read my original post, James, you will see my valid observations which have also been made by mainstream fact and understandings re the OP 'idea'. The point I raised was that GR itself has not actually predicted wormholes, but only "certain extensions" of GR by mathematicians have 'implied' them; but they were not interested in physical constraints and domains of applicability which GR is limited to if GR is to be considered valid in physical terms (hence they use the term "Certain Extensions to GR"; as most genuine physicists recognize, even in paddoboy's own references).

So my 'stance' has always been one of valid scientific skepticism as dictated by the scientific method and its principles of objectivity and relevance on the science at issue.

Whereas paddoboy's repeated reposting of his irrelevant, unscientific beliefs and unwarranted mischaracterizations and personal attacks, have turned this into then usual kind of paddoboy-initiated mess with confused and conflated personal and unscientific assertions from him.

Sure, the 'philosophical stance' paddoboy takes----(ie, that nothing can be 'categorically' be said to be 'impossible')-----is OK in that context; but that is all it is at this stage, a philosophical stance; since the GR and the Quantum theory and physical considerations I alluded to strongly and unequivocally indicate that wormholes, central singularities/naked singularities in black holes (which do exist), entanglement of black holes across vast space distances and the "exotic energy" needed for wormholes, can IN FACT NOT 'exist' other than in science fiction/fantasy speculations which even the mainstream physicists recognize are so far just that and no more.

The burden of proof is on the Susskind OP speculations, not on me (as paddoboy seems to think, hence his posting of unreasonable and unrelenting irrelevant personal beliefs and attacks when I merely point out the scientific requirement of burden of proof).

I only posted this because it was forced upon me by paddoboy's continuing mischaracterization tactics based on his own misunderstandings and personal/emotional way of 'discussing' what should be dispassionately considered scientific points at issue. I trust your own impression, James, is much more in tune with what actually happened; which is distinctly different from paddoboy's demonstrably mischaracterized version above. Thanks.

I will answer your on-science post addressed to me asap, James; in my next post I hope. Until then. Best.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Well the rantings of anyone on any blog can be taken with a grain of salt when compared to a scientific paper. and again please note his use of the word [probably]
But at least you have tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual: That's a start. Good.

Again with the puerile "Emojis", paddoboy. Respect!

Would you be so kind as to directly Cite or Quote the Post authored by myself where I : "tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual", paddoboy?

All I have done is Post Honest, Earnest and Intelligent input from an Educated and Informed Real Scientist, who by all indications, actually knows the true Science that is being discussed in this Thread.

 

[paddoboy]

Again with the puerile "Emojis", paddoboy. Respect!

Would you be so kind as to directly Cite or Quote the Post authored by myself where I : "tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual", paddoboy?

All I have done is Post Honest, Earnest and Intelligent input from an Educated and Informed Real Scientist, who by all indications, actually knows the true Science that is being discussed in this Thread.

Most reputable physicists know the "true science" dmoe, and none so far have said that wormholes do not categorically exist. Including your own educated real scientist.

 

[paddoboy]

The point I raised was that GR itself has not actually predicted wormholes, but only "certain extensions" of GR by mathematicians have 'implied' them;

Any reference citations or links to support that?
Only certain extensions! C'mon expletive deleted that's simply a cop out.
It's either part of GR or its not.
And of course just to reiterate and make clear where you are coming from, you also dispute apparently BH's gravitational waves, cosmological eredshifts, DM and a myriad of other accepted scenarios re 21st century cosmology.
That's OK, refute and deny all you like. But you are unable to support any of your stories.
[PS: I'm counting the number of times you have said "paddoboy" and for every time, I'm giving $5 to my local surf lifesaving charity]

 

[dumbest man on earth]

This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist: You are unable to show anything as yet to support that, and neither has dmoe.

paddoboy, why must you constantly mis-characterize this discussion as : "This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist:"
Why not characterize it as : "This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do exist:"
If, as you often parrot, paddoboy, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then why do you not produce or Cite where any Scientist has ever Proclaimed "categorically that wormholes do exist" and has provided the "Extraordinary Evidence" to support that Proclamation?
...

Back on the current debate, and just as James has said: wormholes are a hypothetical, or as dmoe prefers, science fiction outcome and prediction of GR.

Present your evidence, paddoboy, that I "prefer" wormholes to be "science fiction".
Please Cite or Quote any Post authored by me where I state : I prefer wormholes to be science fiction.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Most reputable physicists know the "true science" dmoe, and none so far have said that wormholes do not categorically exist. Including your own educated real scientist.

As you so often state : "much ado about nothing..."
And, again, with the intentional mis-characterization, paddoboy...
Please Cite the Scientist that has "categorically" stated that "wormholes" do indeed "Exist" in "Physical Reality" and has produced the "Extraordinary" Physical "Evidence required" to back up that "Extraordinary Claim".

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, why must you constantly mis-characterize this discussion as : "This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist:"

Yep Give that man a cigar!

Why not characterize it as : "This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do exist:"

Because that is not true.

If, as you often parrot, paddoboy, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then why do you not produce or Cite where any Scientist has ever Proclaimed "categorically that wormholes do exist" and has provided the "Extraordinary Evidence" to support that Proclamation?

...Because most do not, despite your own parroting.
And possibly despite your parroting, no one is making any claim with regards to wormholes, other than that its a hypothetical prediction of GR, and we cannot be 100% sure either way as to their existence or otherwise.

Present your evidence, paddoboy, that I "prefer" wormholes to be "science fiction".
Please Cite or Quote any Post authored by me where I state : I prefer wormholes to be science fiction.

Did I say that?
Let me put it again in big bold letters.
No physicists will ever categorically claim that wormholes do not exist.
The answer is simply at this stage, we do not know!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

What is Post #93?
There is no cogent response of any kind in the Post...
There is absolutely no attempt to actually engage in an Honest discussion...

 

[paddoboy]

What is Post #93?
There is no cogent response of any kind in the Post...
There is absolutely no attempt to actually engage in an Honest discussion...

...
I've seen many in the past trying to engage you in meaningful discussions including Kittamaru and Trippy.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I've seen many in the past trying to engage you in meaningful discussions including Kittamaru and Trippy.

...puerile "emojis", paddoboy. "Respect"!

Again, paddoboy, would you be so kind as to backup what you have authored :
1.) - in response to your Post #83 : Would you be so kind as to directly Cite or Quote the Post authored by myself where I : "tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual", paddoboy?

2.) - in response to your Post #86 : why do you not produce or Cite where any Scientist has ever Proclaimed "categorically that wormholes do exist" and has provided the "Extraordinary Evidence" to support that Proclamation?

3.) - also in response to your Post #86 : Present your evidence, paddoboy, that I "prefer" wormholes to be "science fiction".
Please Cite or Quote any Post authored by me where I state : I prefer wormholes to be science fiction.

4.) - in response to your Post #89 : Please Cite the Scientist that has "categorically" stated that "wormholes" do indeed "Exist" in "Physical Reality" and has produced the "Extraordinary" Physical "Evidence required" to back up that "Extraordinary Claim".

5.) - in response to your Post #95 : please explain how your statement : "I've seen many in the past trying to engage you in meaningful discussions including Kittamaru and Trippy." , has anything at all to do with "wormholes"...

 

[paddoboy]

Again, paddoboy, would you be so kind as to backup what you have authored

...

You need to accept dmoe, that you will be judged on the seriousness and genuine nature of your questions or lack thereof, on this forum by your peers that have judged you in the past.
I'll leave it at that for the reasons I stated.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does anyone participating here hold the opinion that any mainstream scientists proclaim wormholes do not exist?
Does anyone participating here hold the opinion that any mainstream scientists proclaim wormholes do exist?

If we're all in agreement about claims of existence v. non-existence, the meta-disagreement may be a moot point, thread-wise.

 

[paddoboy]

Does anyone participating here hold the opinion that any mainstream scientists proclaim wormholes do not exist?
Does anyone participating here hold the opinion that any mainstream scientists proclaim wormholes do exist?

If we're all in agreement about claims of existence v. non-existence, the meta-disagreement may be a moot point, thread-wise.

Some prefer games to science discussion Dave, for different reasons.
The answer is of course we don't know, but as per the scientific method, and the fact that at one time, many speculative areas of cosmology are now accepted as confirmed, including time dilation, gravitational waves and gravitational lensing:
Research in the meantime continues as per the OP and Professor Susskind, but the position here as I see it at this pedantic stage, is that those that have a fanatical "bee in their bonnet" re 21st century cosmology, [and/or myself ] must deride whenever they see something that overshadows there own fabricated fairy tales: hence the obvious "not so smart" obfuscation, the ignoring of the speculative nature of the OP and the recognised expert, the fact that it is predicted by GR whose track record is near perfect, the lies, the whinging, and total denial of exactly what you are saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

The answer is of course we don't know,

Your stance is not ambiguous.
I'm interested if anyone else disagrees, inasmuch as there's a lot of discussion about it that might simply go away.