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

paddoboy said:
...

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.
Click to expand...
the ^^above quoted^^ has nothing at all to do with "wormholes"...

My queries are indeed Serious and Genuine, regardless of by whom or how they are "Judged".

And now, paddoboy, you have the opportunity to be truly Serious and Genuine...
So, again, 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"...
 
I must say at this stage that with the useless rhetoric by some, that this thread is now a sham.
But once again, what certain people are trying to achieve on this forum ,stays on this forum. :)
Mainstream academia continues on as is and along with the current research as detailed in the OP.
So, tell me someone, how can such people be so delusional in seemingly believing that what they claim is "gospel" and that what they claim is "accepted" :rolleyes::D
As James told me, and he was perfectly correct, Science does not need protection or support from myself or anyone else, against what certain people claim on forums such as this.
My reply: I'm just thinking of the little children! :)
 
Last edited:
In summing and getting back to the OP and Professor Susskind, if this should prove to be valid, the whole aspect of Physics will change and we may even have a TOE.
Wormholes are simply another prediction of GR, that has yet to be realised if valid. We have not observed them, nor do we have any evidence of them, but there was also a time when time dilation, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, BH's spacetime curvature, were also just speculative scenarios.
All of those are now confirmed, and accepted by mainstream cosmology, within any reasonable definition of what a scientific theory is.
Some experts believe wormholes probably do not exist....
Others believe that they probably do exist.
No professional though will say that categorically, wormholes do not exist. We cannot say with certainty one way or the other.
Despite the puerile fabricated approach some have chosen to take on the subject.
Those are the facts, and no amount of denying or obfuscating on a science forum will ever change that.

In the meantime and not withstanding some of the nonsense on this forum, the experts and professionals, will continue researching and gathering what ever data they are able to on such matters, as the many papers I have linked to show, at least until we have a definite answer one way or the other.
That's called science:
 
@ James R:

James R said:
Back to the topic of the thread...
Click to expand...
I would wish we had never left it; but a thread is not proof against determined 'tactical irrelevancies and mischaracterizations' which seem to crop up in the usual way, more often than not, from a certain quarter, which as the threads affected will show, ends up confusing and burying the actual on-science discussion. To which on-science discussion I was originally contributing to in this thread with valid and supportable observations regarding the thread topic. Let us hope the 'tactical irrelevancies and mischaracterizations' do not re-appear.


Singularities are still legitimate solutions of the GR equations. We have good reasons to suspect that singularities might turn out not to be physical but merely an artifact of GR being a classical theory. But I do not believe that the physical existence of singularities has been conclusively "disproven" at the current time.
Click to expand...
The only way GR equations 'predict' singularities if if the Radius=Zero condition provides a physically possible and meaningful 'solution'. It does not. Hence why Quantum Physicists and even GR relativists BOTH tend to NOW agree that these 'singularities' have always been only mathematical theory artifacts, not actual physical theory possibilities. The "infinities' generated by the GR maths when radius=zero leads to infinities; and these cannot be 'remormalized' away like other kinds of infinities generated by naive application of some Quantum Theory equations/calculations in certain contexts to do with forces strength as certain scales. So there are some impossible things in physical context: such as the mathematical GR-singularities 'solutions', however 'legitimate' they may be in pure maths context.


In physics, theory and experiment/observation constantly interact. Sometimes theory leads experiment; sometimes experiment leads theory. Those "pure maths explorations" often turn out to lead to useful insights and new discoveries. The theory of relativity itself started as a "pure maths exploration". So did much of modern quantum physics.
Click to expand...
I have never said otherwise. In fact I stress all the time that unless real testable contexts are applicable, then it is pure maths speculations, as are the concepts upon which the above OP idea depends but which are also increasingly acknowledged to be no more than science fiction/fantasy speculations unlikely to be real physically (such as unreal entanglement of black holes to produce wormhole which requires non-existent 'exotic energy' and 'naked-singularities). There is no serious physicist that today agrees with the 'purely fun' speculation that "true two-way time travel is possible" or "naked singularities exist and can form a wormhole using 'exotic energy' etc. Only 'publish or perish offerings by those who have hit an 'ideas brick wall' when it comes to truly serious and testable science continue to 'offer' such patently absurd mathematical 'artifacts' as serious physical possibilities when the evolving science in both GR and Quantum theory THEMSELVES is ruling them out in real physical contexts.

And with the greatest respect (really), James, you are mistaken about the genesis of the theory of relativity. It began with Intuitive Insight by Einstein; and afterwards later his insights and their logical consequences were couched in maths terms; the maths necessarily appropriately modified by him: eg, introducing new terms and modeling constructs (cosmological term; space-time fabric, etc) by which to convey those NEW insights which then led to GR maths/solutions (some of which are beyond the realm of actual physical possibility, as already pointed out).



]I am not (yet) personally convinced that wormholes are unphysical. But, admittedly, I'm not an expert in the field and it has been a while since I've studied up on wormhole theory, so perhaps I'm out of date. That's why I asked whether you had any links to material showing that wormholes are indeed "unphysical". For example, I am aware of some proposals for creating regions of "negative energy density", as is required by the "exotic matter" in some wormhole theories. But maybe those ideas have proven untenable. I don't know.

And is there a proven "no naked singularities" theorem of some sort, or does that remain speculative?
Click to expand...
The GR maths "extended" by some into UN-physical contexts and assumptions are already seen to be untestable and unphysical; even according to the constraints imposed by the very theories which had to be "extended" into pure maths unreality where further 'fun' speculations could be done without worrying about those real physical constraints. Science fiction/fantasies like time travel and naked singularities have no basis in GR or Quantum physics, only in pure maths 'extensions' into the unreal. That does not entitle anyone to use the 'philosophical' all-purpose cop-out (used by religionists and science fantasy writers and publish or perish' types in the 'profession' who have nothing real to offer science discussion). In short: No amount of personal philosophical/metaphysical, science fiction/fantasy 'fun' MAKE-believe can ever make something that is patently SCIENTIFICALLY UNTENABLE, a 'real possibility'.


Yes, of course.

I merely question your apparent certainty that those things are impossible. I do not dispute that it remains to be shown that any of them actually exist "in reality".

Moreover, my main point in my previous post was to question the idea that theories of exotic energy or wormholes are pseudoscientific. The fact that a hypothesis is unproven does not make it pseudoscientific, as you know.
Click to expand...
Of course, I already indicated that by suggesting that since it is an obviously untestable speculation depending on unreal 'artifacts' from maths only not physical theory itself, it should perhaps be posted under "ON THE FRINGE" section unless and until any hint of its testability and even remote possibility in fact, is offered by its authors and proponents of their 'possibility' in fact. I left it up to the reader whether it should go to sub-section "Alternative Theory" OR to sub-section 'Pseudoscience" until that scientific testability and likelihood of existing is anywhere near a supportable scientific speculation as distinct from science fiction/fantasy speculation based on patently unreal 'maths artifacts' which even the mainstream have called such except for those not wishing to offend the sensibilities of their 'peers' who offered this obvious 'publish or perish' speculative philosophical/metaphysical and mathematical-only exercise.


TO BE CONTINUED NEXT POST
 
Last edited:
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST TO JAMES R:


I was trying to address what you wrote. That has nothing to do with anything paddoboy wrote. Does it?
Click to expand...
That is the problem with the insidious and sustained mischaracterizations by same; the 'impression' is made on the next person called in to assess an exchange, and subconscious bias due to sustained prejudicial mischaracterizations may already be at play even as the assessor reads; or if he/she hasn't the time or inclination to go back/deep as far as necessary to get the whole picture; and so default to the subconscious preconceptions implanted over time by the instigator in this (and too many other) instances.


Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Your fair mindedness much appreciated.


I think that we should not discount out of hand a suggestion made by a professional physicist of Susskind's calibre. He's not your run-of-the-mill backyard crank making up fantasies based on a misunderstanding of the relevant physical theory. I'd say he has earned a hearing.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, there is an old saying in hollywood: you are only as good as your latest bright idea. In this instance, Susskind's latest idea has all the hallmarks of a hasty 'publish or perish' idea put out there because he was being left behind by peers who were pursuing the real scientific ideas.

And Susskind's 'latest idea' here is reminiscent of the Sean Carroll team's recent speculative work exploring how 'space curvature' may affect the properties etc of particles and processes. Susskind's ER=EPR is qualitative/philosophical "equation" which has no real meaning until the nuts and bolts of what that means in reality can be identified and quantified. Whereas the Carroll team's work is actually SCIENTIFIC and ultimately testable and not unreasonable given the state of real physical theory and knowledge to date.

On the other hand, I completely agree with you that the onus is on him to make a convincing case, and not for others to prove him wrong.

Regarding the specific proposal that forms the topic of this thread, I can't comment - I admit I haven't looked into the matter. Therefore, I keep an open mind on this for now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your fair mindedness again; much appreciated.

And I have often seen said by certain posters here (I can't remember if you were one of those posters or not), something to the effect: "It's good to keep an open mind; but not so open that any nonsense can easily get past the 'BS' filter and be mistaken for actual science or physical reality". I take that seriously; so it is only reasonable that I had expected those who say it to 'cranks' would also say it to themselves, and actually believe what they are saying. That is all I expected from those reading my observations on the OP 'idea'.

I have a fuller impression about your view of the matter. The question of correctness remains unresolved for me.
Click to expand...
The only correctness I am interested in as far as paddoboy is concerned is with regards to behavior in keeping with the rules and spirit of polite on-science discussion without unwarranted intrusions with personal and irrelevant distractions and confusions which make am mess of otherwise interesting and good discussions. The correctness of the science arguments and points is and must be always left to the actual discussion arguments and points made on topic and on science. That latter is all I have ever asked for from anyone.

Keep in mind that I have posted in this thread in two separate capacities. One is as a moderately-interested participant in the discussion of the thread topic. The other is as a moderator responding to issues raised regarding moderation of the forum. If I was not interested in the topic, I would have restricted myself to commenting on the moderation matters alone.
Click to expand...
No problem. Already understood. Thanks again for your efforts in 'that other matter'; and thanks even more for your kind and polite on-science discussion with me to date, James. Let us hope it now remains on-science and on-topic in the contributions of all other parties. Best.
 
Last edited:
I'll attempt to reply to some of your claims, ignoring your usual snipes at me....
expletives deleted said:
@ James R:
The only way GR equations 'predict' singularities if if the Radius=Zero condition provides a physically possible and meaningful 'solution'. It does not. Hence why Quantum Physicists and even GR relativists BOTH tend to NOW agree that these 'singularities' have always been only mathematical theory artifacts, not actual physical theory possibilities. The "infinities' generated by the GR maths when radius=zero leads to infinities; and these cannot be 'remormalized' away like other kinds of infinities generated by naive application of some Quantum Theory equations/calculations in certain contexts to do with forces strength as certain scales. So there are some impossible things in physical context: such as the mathematical GR-singularities 'solutions', however 'legitimate' they may be in pure maths context.
Click to expand...
The singularity simply is not thought to exist because of the infinite qualities of spacetime curvature and density: Even then, please note: not thought to exist and I agree.....
wormholes are a solution of GR not muddled with infinities and as such still ramains uncertain in the view of mainstream cosmology in general.
As I have said many times, No professional will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist.
expletives deleted said:
I have never said otherwise. In fact I stress all the time that unless real testable contexts are applicable, then it is pure maths speculations, as are the concepts upon which the above OP idea depends but which are also increasingly acknowledged to be no more than science fiction/fantasy speculations unlikely to be real physically (such as unreal entanglement of black holes to produce wormhole which requires non-existent 'exotic energy' and 'naked-singularities). There is no serious physicist that today agrees with the 'purely fun' speculation that "true two-way time travel is possible" or "naked singularities exist and can form a wormhole using 'exotic energy' etc. Only 'publish or perish offerings by those who have hit an 'ideas brick wall' when it comes to truly serious and testable science continue to 'offer' such patently absurd mathematical 'artifacts' as serious physical possibilities when the evolving science in both GR and Quantum theory THEMSELVES is ruling them out in real physical contexts.
Click to expand...
All that has been done before by myself and James: No one is claiming wormholes exist.....the reality is that we cannot say they categorically do not exist.
expletives deleted said:
And with the greatest respect (really), James, you are mistaken about the genesis of the theory of relativity. It began with Intuitive Insight by Einstein; and afterards later his insights and their logical consequences were couched in maths terms; the maths necessarily appropriately modified by him: eg, introducing new terms and modeling constructs (cosmological term; space-time fabric, etc) by which to convey those NEW insights which then led to GR maths/solutions (some of which are beyond the realm of actual physical possibility, as already pointed out).
Click to expand...
Maths is the language of physics. Gravitational waves, BH's, spacetime curvature, etc have all been observationally verified.
Could you please offer a reputable citation or link to support your stance please.
expletives deleted said:
The GR maths "extended" by some into UN-physical contexts and assumptions are already seen to be untestable and unphysical; even according to the constraints imposed by the very theories which had to be "extended" into pure maths unreality where further 'fun' speculations could be done without worrying about those real physical constraints. Science fiction/fantasies like time travel and naked singularities have no basis in GR or Quantum physics, only in pure maths 'extensions' into the unreal.
Click to expand...
The thing that you dismiss, maths, underpins the theory of GR.
Time travel is another concept along with wormholes that theoretically we just do not know, although obviously time travel in one form is certainly real enough and happens frequently and is observed frequently.
Again I see a total anti GR raising its head here, which explains a hell of a lot.
expletives deleted said:
That does not entitle anyone to use the 'philosophical' all-purpose cop-out (used by religionists and science fantasy writers and publish or perish' types in the 'profession' who have nothing real to offer science discussion) of: No amount of personal belief that "it's possible" makes something a SCIENTIFICALLY TENABLE 'real possibility'.
Click to expand...
You yourself actually appear to have some sort of agenda, as evidenced by this post and your appaarent rejection and derision of mathematics and GR.
And any cop out is yours, particularly your "publish or perish"remark presumably directed at Professor Susskind. The funny thing though is that I have submitted many papers [as opposed to your nothing] that reflects the general acceptance of the ongoing research into wormholes despite the non existence of evidence for them.
It's called science.
expletives deleted said:
Of course, I already indicated that by suggesting that since it is an obviously untestable speculation depending on unreal 'artifacts' from maths only not physical theory itself, it should perhaps be posted under "ON THE FRINGE" section unless and until any hint of its testability and even remote possibility in fact, is offered by its authors and proponents of their 'possibility' in fact. I left it up to the reader whether it should go to sub-section "Alternative Theory" OR to sub-section 'Pseudoscience" until that scientific testability and likelihood of existing is anywhere near a supportable scientific speculation as distinct from science fiction/fantasy speculation based on patently unreal 'maths artifacts' which even the mainstream have called such except for those not wishing to offend the sensibilities of their 'peers' who offered this obvious publish or perish' speculative philosophical/metaphysical and mathematical-only exercise.
Click to expand...
:) It seems you want to dismiss all mainstream science and science speculation to the fringes, while denying such observational entities such as gravitational waves, DM, cosmological redshift and the usual in those legitimate science threads..
Wormholes are predicted by GR and no amount of whatever it is you are trying to do will change that.
Whether they exist or not is an open question.
 
expletives deleted said:
If I recall correctly, there is an old saying in hollywood: you are only as good as your latest bright idea. In this instance, Susskind's latest idea has all the hallmarks of a hasty 'publish or perish' idea put out there because he was being left behind by peers who were pursuing the real scientific ideas.
Click to expand...
Instead of quoting something from Hollywood or Bollywood, why not consider the quote from a great man....
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". Albert Einstein
It's Professor Susskind too expletive deleted and all you are claiming is hogwash, unsupported and indications of a powerful agenda by those that seek to denigrate him, all from the comfort of their lounge on a remote science forum that means nothing in the greater scheme of things..
expletives deleted said:
And Susskind's 'latest idea' here is reminiscent of the Sean Carroll team's recent speculative work exploring how 'space curvature' may affect the properties etc of particles and processes. Susskind's ER=EPR is qualitative/philosophical "equation" which has no real meaning until the nuts and bolts of what that means in reality can be identified and quantified. Whereas the Carroll team's work is actually SCIENTIFIC and ultimately testable and not unreasonable given the state of real physical theory and knowledge to date.
Click to expand...
These are professional scientists researching possible scenarios: As I have said many times and given examples, many aspects of today's cosmology was once speculative. In fact every scientific theory is at one time speculative.
James has asked your for a reference, just as I have. You danced around that question and erred badly.
Again, that says it all imho.
expletives deleted said:
"It's good to keep an open mind; but not so open that any nonsense can easily get past the 'BS' filter and be mistaken for actual science or physical reality". I take that seriously; so it is only reasonable that I had expected those who say it to 'cranks' would also say it to themselves, and actually believe what they are saying. That is all I expected from those reading my observations on the OP 'idea'.
Click to expand...
Your observations were askew...and your record on other aspects of cosmology, were also shown to be askew and wrong....If you don't want other members holding up the bullshit meter to your statements, then please support them with some citation and/or link.
expletives deleted said:
The only correctness I am interested in as far as paddoboy is concerned is with regards to behavior in keeping with the rules and spirit of polite on-science discussion without unwarranted intrusions with personal and irrelevant distractions and confusions which make am mess of otherwise interesting and good discussions. The correctness of the science arguments and points is and must be always left to the actual discussion arguments and points made on topic and on science. That latter is all I have ever asked for from anyone.
Click to expand...
That's great! So let's start afresh without any insults, OK?
But please don't be offended when poeple tell you, you are wrong. If I say that, I will support it with a link. If you tell me I am wrong, tell me in as short as possible and again support your stance and if I still disagree, with a reference or link.
Is that too much to ask?
 
Last edited:
Those who support worm holes, can they answer following questions without raising hands in despair..

1. Space is expanding, so how do we account for expansion between the opening on this side to the other side.

2. A bridge connecting the two parts of spacetime, is made up of what ?

3. The equations do not need two holes to form a worm hole, so let us say material transfers to other part of space, then it is very natural that gravitational influence on this side will change, any thoughts?

4. What determines the bridge size ? The 3 D dimensions of a worm hole, and why the hole must terminate on the other side.

5. What evidence we have in the first place that our space has such shape to accommodate worm holes.

6. Are we doing away with singularity in favor of worm holes.

Only those who feel that worm holes may exist, repeat those who accept that yeah such monster has possibility of existence, pl try these points.
 
The God said:
Those who support worm holes, can they answer following questions without raising hands in despair..

1. Space is expanding, so how do we account for expansion between the opening on this side to the other side.

2. A bridge connecting the two parts of spacetime, is made up of what ?

3. The equations do not need two holes to form a worm hole, so let us say material transfers to other part of space, then it is very natural that gravitational influence on this side will change, any thoughts?

4. What determines the bridge size ? The 3 D dimensions of a worm hole, and why the hole must terminate on the other side.

5. What evidence we have in the first place that our space has such shape to accommodate worm holes.

6. Are we doing away with singularity in favor of worm holes.

Only those who feel that worm holes may exist, repeat those who accept that yeah such monster has possibility of existence, pl try these points.
Click to expand...
No physicist worth his salt has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist.
Apply your questions to BH's that also were once thought to be science fiction.
Apply your questions also to the once fictional aspect of gravitational waves, or cosmological redshift, or simply spacetime curvature.
All these things were once science fiction.
But you still dismiss all of these despite the evidence that now sees them all verified and confirmed in line with any reasonable definition of a scientific theory.
Is this possibly because you are attempting to install your god of the gaps argument?
Let's repeat it again.
wormholes are a prediction of GR.
At this time they remain hypothetical, and science fiction [as did all of the above concepts at one time]
Some cosmologists as I have shown believe that they probably do not exist.
Some cosmologists as I have shown believe that they probably do exist.
No cosmologist as I have shown, has ever said that they categorically do not exist, or that they categorically do exist.
As such, and like many other areas of speculative science and science fiction, they are candidates for proper scientific research and scientific theoretical application as per the OP.
Those are facts. That is science. That is how science works.
 
Last edited:
@ James R:

Our mutual hopes that the thread can return and remain on science and on topic (without further irrelevant personal opinion and misunderstandings-based insinuations, misattributions and mischaracterizations etc) is dashed almost immediately. He can't seem to stop himself. Do you see where he attributes anti-science agendas to me even though I apply the scientific methodology and relevancy and objectivity principles and he hardly even knows what they are let alone applies them in discussion while constantly insinuating personal motives to anyone challenging the idea/point on its science merits not personal or philosophical stances?

He can't seem to get straight that:

1) I am not interested in what a 'scientist' may or may not think is possible/impossible: I am only interested in what the science ITSELF indicates; irrespective of philosophical and science fiction/fantasy etc ruminations for 'fun' and 'publish or perish' necessity (which latter we all know occurs).

And:

2) He still hasn't understood subtle issues and distinctions while he conflates and mischaracterizes away as usual confusing himself and the actual relevant discussion points/narrative: For example he still has not realized that the BH concept itself (where light cannot escape) was postulated by Mitchell using NEWTONIAN theory maths which indicated a REAL PHYSICAL possible solution to that maths; and that the EINSTEINIAN theory maths 'solution' only added the CENTRAL SINGULARITY 'concept'; which latter 'concept' is increasingly indicated by Quantum Theory and even GR maths and physical constraints to be UNPHYSICAL 'solution' which may not actually exist (irrespective of what any particular scientist's personal stance of not being in a position to rule them out categorically, it is the SCIENCE ITSELF which is the arbiter not personal opinion based on general philosophical stances).

3) His POP-science-based insistence that "time travel in one form is certainly real enough and happens frequently and is observed frequently", demonstrates that he is easily swayed and misled by such scientifically untenable science fiction/fantasy concepts that have no reality: For example time dilation effects are not time travel they are effects from across-space motional and/or across-well gravitational factors, not time itself; nor does cryogenic slowing of biological/physical processes involve time travel, but rather involves only slowed biological aging and particle ensembles evolutionary processes, as the case may be. With such like misunderstandings and mischaracterizations he evades acknowledging that TWO WAY time travel is impossible physically, by all indications from actual SCIENCE, regardless of OPINIONS and stances based on fiction/fantasy etc pop-sci irrelevances.

The list is long, so I will just end with the observation that just because some things turn out to be possible, that doesn't mean that all things will turn out to be possible; especially when the actual scientific physical theory and knowledge and real context constraints is consulted, regardless of people's personal opinions based on pop-sci and/or philosophical stances.

Now you see why I am become increasingly wary of engaging with him and his 'tactical' posts and approach to 'discussion'; since it invariably ends up with more such irrelevances and mischaracterizations and confusions and conflations which make a mess of the otherwise polite and on science discussion narratives.

Anyhow, James, I again echo your and my earlier hopes, that this thread discussion can be left to proceed on science and on topic without such like personal and pop-sci and philosophical irrelevances and mischaracterizations and misattributions etc being again insinuated and confusing the issues actually involved in the OP idea and my/others on topic comments, observations and arguments without all the distraction and animosities baggage from other people and thread topics.

Thanks. Best.
 
Last edited:
expletives deleted said:
@ James R:

Our mutual hopes that the thread can return and remain on science and on topic (without further irrelevant personal opinion and misunderstandings-based insinuations, misattributions and mischaracterizations etc) is dashed almost immediately. He can't seem to stop himself. Do you see where he attributes anti-science agendas to me even though I apply the scientific methodology and relevancy and objectivity principles and he hardly even knows what they are let alone applies them in discussion while constantly insinuating personal motives to anyone challenging the idea/point on its science merits not personal or philosophical stances?
Click to expand...
Funny, so far James has indicated that it is yourself raising your continued irrelevancies, including that of myself. :)
And despite your claim that I'm not approaching this scientifically my reputable papers show different, or do you believe that somehow others on this forum that are witnessing this silly carryings on are not able to read?
The fact remains as I have said from day one....Wormholes while certainly at this time still science fiction and hypothetical, have never been dismissed out of hand categorically by any professional expert. In fact so far the only crew I see that deny that, are the same crew that seem to deny all or most of 21st century cosmology.
You see what these scientists think [reputable noted scientists as distinct from your own anonymity] is exactly what the science itself indicates, and to see someone writing off papers etc as "pop science" or to claim again that unsupported line "publish or perish] is akin to the scenario of what the infamous "three wise monkeys" represent and that's a shame. You are able to see that are you not? In other words what I'm suggesting to you is forget who is linking those papers [me] forget any preconceived thoughts or any previous brain washing you may have possibly undergone, and approach those papers and the research and the methodology and finally the reasonable conclusions and possibilities they arrive at.
Ignoring the rest of your incorrect scientific assessment, since it seems I have already corrected your errors previously.
Finally again, if you want anyone to listen to what you are claiming you need to implement two factors forthwith.
[1] Support everything you are claiming.
[2] If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein


You have a good day, you hear? I actually thought we were going to start off again on the right foot: Shame though you are still confused.
 
Apologies for bothering you again expletive deleted but I just glanced at the following...:rolleyes: shame!

expletives deleted said:
For example time dilation effects are not time travel they are effects from across-space motional and/or across-well gravitational factors, not time itself;
Click to expand...
https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today.

Travelling forward in time rapidly
Albert Einstein's relativistic laws of physics tell us that time is "personal". If you and I move differently or are at different locations in a gravitational field, then the rate of flow of time that you experience (the rate that governs the ticking of any very good clock you carry with you and that governs the aging of your body) is different from the rate of time flow that I experience. (Einstein used the phrase "time is relative"; I prefer "time is personal".)
more......
and the following is really interesting, if like a true scientist, you can open up your mind to the real observed facts of present day cosmology.

Let me give you another really simple example that I thought you would have been aware of.
Our astronauts/cosmonauts in the ISS experience time travel albeit tiny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

PS: expletive deleted: Please realise that although the world wide net certainly has plenty of rubbish on it, it also has many great words of wisdom and articles of knowledge regarding science that you would do well to read, and digest.

Remember, what you are claiming that remains unsupported despite requests for that support, is in itself pseudoscience.
Is that what you want your peers on this forum to think of you? :frown: Sad.
 
Paddoboy,

It is dishonest on your part not to answer those questions in # 111.

You see you are throwing so many papers in support of worm hole, so for you those questions should be a cakewalk. Try them pl.
 
The God said:
Paddoboy,

It is dishonest on your part not to answer those questions in # 111.
Click to expand...
Pot, Kettle, Black?
No, not dishonest anyway, just wide awake to your puerile games.
The God said:
You see you are throwing so many papers in support of worm hole, so for you those questions should be a cakewalk. Try them pl.
Click to expand...
I don't need to the god. all questions have been answered anyway, despite them being just another childish attempt by yourself to somehow trap me? :D Ra....or Min;) Oooops! ;)
 
The God said:
1. Space is expanding, so how do we account for expansion between the opening on this side to the other side.
.
Click to expand...
I'll answer one of your questions my friend: A question that has been explained to you many many times in relation to other cosmological matters.
Spacetime expansion occurs over large scales. Over smaller scales such as our galaxy, our group of galaxies, and our cluster of galaxies, the obvious extra mass/energy density of these regions, hence gravity, overcome the overall expansion of spacetime.

https://www.quora.com/If-the-univer...t-the-sun-and-the-earth-getting-farther-apart
 
paddoboy said:
I'll answer one of your questions my friend: A question that has been explained to you many many times in relation to other cosmological matters.
Spacetime expansion occurs over large scales. Over smaller scales such as our galaxy, our group of galaxies, and our cluster of galaxies, the obvious extra mass/energy density of these regions, hence gravity, overcome the overall expansion of spacetime.

https://www.quora.com/If-the-univer...t-the-sun-and-the-earth-getting-farther-apart
Click to expand...

I see your problem: Two throats of a wormhole in spacetime and spacetime expanding.
I'm not really sure how to answer this then to say that there are many examples of 21st century cosmology, where we have accurate models, that predict successfully, but yet we cannot answer how or why...
Why does warped spacetime cause gravity?
What made the BB go bang?
Obviously you dispute those models but you cannot offer any alternative, other than your "god of the gaps"
But you accept some deity as the reason....some omnipotent, all knowing, vengeful, loving etc. :)
So why add an extra step?
Why not accept the evidenced cosmology as I have detailed many times, and accept that we do not know all the answers, instead of adding your "you know what" as the explantion, which just extends the problem.... Anyway, back to wormholes......
Again all that has been explained and reasoned to you before, so I'm not going through it all again: Suffice to say that what I said previously stands as accurate.....thus.....
wormholes are a prediction of GR.
At this time they remain hypothetical, and science fiction [as did all of the above concepts at one time]
Some cosmologists as I have shown believe that they probably do not exist.
Some cosmologists as I have shown believe that they probably do exist.
No cosmologist as I have shown, has ever said that they categorically do not exist, or that they categorically do exist.
As such, and like many other areas of speculative science and science fiction, they are candidates for proper scientific research and scientific theoretical application as per the OP.
Those are facts. That is science. That is how science works.
 
paddoboy said:
The equation is deceptively simple: ER = EPR.
http://www.sciencealert.com/this-ne...wo-biggest-theories-in-physics-says-physicist
Click to expand...
Shame on this site, which should be better named pseudoscience alert.

This is not an equation. It is a joke made in form of an equation, using the = sign. Even Susskind himself would not name it an equation. In a neutral meaning, one could call it a name for a general idea, or an approach to quantum gravity.

The whole idea is a joke also in a more polemical sense, as a concept for quantum gravity. Established pseudoscience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top