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

[paddoboy]

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.

Your own forum having a bit of a lull Schmelzer? Still!
Obviously the equation is not meant to be an absolute scientific equation, more an indication of what is trying to be realised in purely theoretical form....
Just as your own ether paper is entirely theroetical, plus of course q-reeus' paper which obviously you needed to poopoo as it also done away with your pet ether baby.
Why not comment on the paper and the speculative scenario involved? Instead of the article which afterall we know at times can be sensationalised by journalists.
And of course your dislike of string and its derivitives is well known, hence Profesor Susskind also as he dares entertain such thoughts.
Yes, your position as shaky as it is, is obvious.

But none of that effects the current issue raised by our friends who are hostile not only towards the fact that the reality of wormholes is unknown, but BH's, gravitational waves, cosmological redshifts etc etc...how do they stack up with your ether and thus your "independent" opinion
A shame that your opinion on these things, which have also been the topic of debates here, is silent in that you may need to agree with that terrible paddoboy who had the hide to denigrate your mythical ether.
One foot either side of the fence, has our friend schmelzer!

 

[Schmelzer]

No physicist worth his salt has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist.

Wrong. Scientists propose theories. In many of these theories worm holes categorically do not exist.

You can say that, given that one theory of gravity favored today has wormholes, actually most scientists seem to favor a theory with wormholes. But if those who favor these theories are really those "worth their salt" is an open question. The reason why they accept wormholes is, obviously, because the accept GR, a quite old established theory, which is known to be wrong (because of singularities and because incompatible with quantum theory). To do this is cheap. One does not need even a single new idea to do this. But what makes a scientist "worth his salt" are new ideas, which appear successful.

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.

No. They have never played any role in any science fiction before GR has already been established, and after this they have been simply standard GR predictions.

After desposing low level personal attacks, what remains is:

Obviously the equation is not meant to be an absolute scientific equation, more an indication of what is trying to be realised in purely theoretical form....

Fine. Then, why you quote favorably a low level pseudoscience alert page which names this "equation"?

Why not comment on the paper and the speculative scenario involved?

Because ER=EPR is simply BS, not worth to be commented, even if established BS.

But none of that effects the current issue raised by our friends who are hostile not only towards the fact that the reality of wormholes is unknown, but BH's, gravitational waves, cosmological redshifts etc etc...how do they stack up with your ether and thus your "independent" opinion

Why should I care about your friends? In my ether theory there are gravitational waves, there are redshifts, cosmological ones too, and etc etc. More questions?

 

[paddoboy]

Wrong. Scientists propose theories. In many of these theories worm holes categorically do not exist.

Not really smart Schmelzer, since obviously most would realise that we are speaking of the accepted laws of physics and GR.
The statement stands as I have said. No physicist or cosmologist [no matter how you see the need to obfuscate] has said that wormholes categorically do not exist. Although many far more professional than yourself [and smarter] have said that the ether most certainly does not exist.

The reason why they accept wormholes is, obviously, because the accept GR, a quite old established theory, which is known to be wrong (because of singularities and because incompatible with quantum theory).

Any professional worth his or her salt knows that to be totally misleading at best and just false at worst. GR is a classical theory, that is overwhelmingly accepted due to its accuracy within its applicable parameters.
Your long discarded ether theory remains in oblivion despite your valiant attempts to resurrect it.

One does not need even a single new idea to do this. But what makes a scientist "worth his salt" are new ideas, which appear successful.

Nothing wrong with new ideas as long as they are successful and as long as they are able to predict more than the incumbent.
In that respect, as we all know, your ether remains unsuccessful, and GR remains the incumbent, the usual conspiracy nonsense rants not withstanding.

No. They have never played any role in any science fiction before GR has already been established, and after this they have been simply standard GR predictions.

Rubbish. GR was formulated around 1916: The first test to its validity was 1919.

After desposing low level personal attacks, what remains is:

I have not attacked you, rather your ether model, which I believe to be the basis of your comment, and your rather obfuscating style, particular with regards to the "formula" and of course your failure as a "professional' to comment on other less than factual claims throughout this thread.
And you have conducted your own low level personal attacks against Professor Susskind and string theory at least based on what your own definition of a "low level personal attack" is imagined to be.
All this is, is another attempt to resurrect the "you know what"

Fine. Then, why you quote favorably a low level pseudoscience alert page which names this "equation"?

??I don't believe I have quoted anything from the alert page, other than reproducing an article that is now on most science alert pages and also the paper by a true professional, who happens to see the fact that while the existence or otherwise of wormholes is "we don't know" at best, is doing further research into that arena, just as others are world wide.

Because ER=EPR is simply BS, not worth to be commented, even if established BS.

The ER=EPR is simply conjecture as you have already been informed and as mentioned and inferred in the OP thus.....
"Back in 2013, physicist Leonard Susskind from Stanford University and Juan Maldacena from the Institute for Advance Study at Princeton suggested that the two papers could be describing pretty much the same thing" -
The ER=EPR simply show that relationship.
You are simply avoiding the issue at hand. That is scientific research.

Why should I care about your friends? In my ether theory there are gravitational waves, there are redshifts, cosmological ones too, and etc etc. More questions?

I'm not asking you to care about anyone. I'm simply showing that you are targeting a certain aspect simply because of what I have already stated.
Your own forum is near dead and buried. If you chose to participate here, then do it openly and honestly, without any malice or agenda and answer or refute all aspects rather than targeting one.
At this stage I would like to make a relevant point.
Q-reeus stands confirmed re his theory [which you have commented on adversely]
Schmelzer stands confirmed that his ether theory is also a QGT and surpasses GR.
rajesh stands confirmed with his paper re BNS and other aspects.

All the above attempt to claim invalidation of GR on a science forum, and some have scientific literature published or about to be published.
Invalidation of GR is a feather in anyone's cap and would certainly be in line for the Physics Nobel.
In reality it hasn't and may I say will not happen, at least with regards to the lot above.

The OP and paper are delving into new areas that are unknown to us at this time. It doesn't "pretend" as a group above to replace GR but to unite it or extend it based on current knowledge...It doesn't pretend to be anything other than research into a still speculative scenario, unlike the group I have named above.
from the paper............
"ER=EPR I’ve reinterpreted them in terms of the geometry of Einstein-Rosen bridges. No new phenomena were discovered other than the correlation with what infalling observers see, and whether they can meet behind the horizons of the ERB. The interesting thing is that such a translation is at all possible".
:end:
There are many many papers published that I have linked to that discuss the same or similar scenarios. The paper in question may remain speculative. It may one day be realised.

With regards to the current discussion on wormholes, again it need be said that 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.

 

[Schmelzer]

No physicist or cosmologist [no matter how you see the need to obfuscate] has said that wormholes categorically do not exist.

No scientist would say in GR they do not exist.

In some theories they exist, in other theories they do not exist. To talk about categorical existence, outside some theoretical background, makes not much sense.

Although many far more professional than yourself [and smarter] have said that the ether most certainly does not exist.

Nor the numbers, nor IQ measurements play any role in science. Science is, fortunately, not democracy. I have never made an IQ measurement, because I don't care about this too.

In that respect, as we all know, your ether remains unsuccessful, and GR remains the incumbent, the usual conspiracy nonsense rants not withstanding.

If science would be democracy, my ether theory would be, indeed, unsuccessful. But science is not.

Rubbish. GR was formulated around 1916: The first test to its validity was 1919.

The point being?

I have not attacked you, .... you have conducted your own low level personal attacks against Professor Susskind

Of course, "ER=EPR is simply BS, not worth to be commented" is not a high level critique, but it is not a personal attack against Susskind. Instead, your "you needed to poopoo" I consider to be low level personal attack.

The ER=EPR is simply conjecture as you have already been informed

Yes, and I don't think this conjecture has any scientific value. Other people think differently, their choice. There is zero reason at all why I should think this conjecture is worth to be discussed.

Instead, my ether theory has reached results which string theory can only dream of. It is ignored, but ignorance is not an argument, except may be in "modern science".

That is scientific research.

Yes, it is theoretical science, speculation, and such speculation is 99% failure, and 1% success. I think ER=EPR is one of such failures, and not even worth to be discussed.

If you chose to participate here, then do it openly and honestly, without any malice or agenda and answer or refute all aspects rather than targeting one.

????????????????

Do you want to suggest I have hidden something or that I'm somehow dishonest? Then, what is this for a strange requirement to "answer or refute all aspects"?

The OP and paper are delving into new areas that are unknown to us at this time. It doesn't "pretend" as a group above to replace GR but to unite it or extend it based on current knowledge...It doesn't pretend to be anything other than research into a still speculative scenario, unlike the group I have named above.

Nonsense. Any theory of quantum gravity has to replace and surpass GR, that means, classical GR. As my ether theory does. There is no difference in this.

With regards to the current discussion on wormholes, again it need be said that 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.

There is an essential difference between these. If there would be no time dilation, no gravitational waves, no gravitational lensing, no spacetime curvature effects, GR would be simply plainly invalid, and would have no scientific value at all. Similar to the 99% failure theories, which nobody knows except historians because their names are forgotten. Say, Poincare's relativistic theory of gravity. Or like string theory will be in 30 years, if I'm correct.

But even if there will be no black holes, and no wormholes, GR may survive as a valuable classical approximation of quantum gravity. Which will be anyway the best GR can hope for, and the fate of GR as in my ether theory, as if ER=EPR would be true, as if string theory would be true.

 

[paddoboy]

No scientist would say in GR they do not exist.

In some theories they exist, in other theories they do not exist. To talk about categorical existence, outside some theoretical background, makes not much sense.

All scientists worth their salt use GR: Even those not worth their salt!

Nor the numbers, nor IQ measurements play any role in science. Science is, fortunately, not democracy. I have never made an IQ measurement, because I don't care about this too.

If science would be democracy, my ether theory would be, indeed, unsuccessful. But science is not.

And it still is unsuccessful.

The point being?

There was a time when the predictions of GR were purely hypothetical.

Of course, "ER=EPR is simply BS, not worth to be commented" is not a high level critique, but it is not a personal attack against Susskind. Instead, your "you needed to poopoo" I consider to be low level personal attack.

Yes, I've seen your rather weird considerations, both politically and otherwise. But in future I will try and treat you with kid gloves.

Yes, and I don't think this conjecture has any scientific value. Other people think differently, their choice. There is zero reason at all why I should think this conjecture is worth to be discussed.

The same zero reason your ether is not discussed in academic circles.

Instead, my ether theory has reached results which string theory can only dream of. It is ignored, but ignorance is not an argument, except may be in "modern science".

Is this an example of low level conspiracy nonsense?

Yes, it is theoretical science, speculation, and such speculation is 99% failure, and 1% success. I think ER=EPR is one of such failures, and not even worth to be discussed.

You are entitled to your opinion, others disagree: [kid gloves on ]

????????????????

Do you want to suggest I have hidden something or that I'm somehow dishonest? Then, what is this for a strange requirement to "answer or refute all aspects"?

Nonsense. Any theory of quantum gravity has to replace and surpass GR, that means, classical GR. As my ether theory does. There is no difference in this.

Except it is a fairy tale. Did GR replace Newtonian?
ps: Your ether hypothesis does nothing but languish in oblivion.

There is an essential difference between these. If there would be no time dilation, no gravitational waves, no gravitational lensing, no spacetime curvature effects, GR would be simply plainly invalid, and would have no scientific value at all. Similar to the 99% failure theories, which nobody knows except historians because their names are forgotten. Say, Poincare's relativistic theory of gravity. Or like string theory will be in 30 years, if I'm correct.

And yet with the two or three cranks we have already denying all those GR inspired aspects, and your notable failure to admonish them, and rather pretend to admonish what we all know is a speculative scenario with regard to Professor Susskind, one may indeed repeat to you ??????????????
Think about it.

But even if there will be no black holes, and no wormholes, GR may survive as a valuable classical approximation of quantum gravity. Which will be anyway the best GR can hope for, and the fate of GR as in my ether theory, as if ER=EPR would be true, as if string theory would be true.

BH's are as good as confirmed as per in line with any reasonable definition of a scientific theory, as are gravitational waves: Wormholes of course remain speculative although no scientist worth his salt has ever said that they categorically do not exist.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

No physicist or cosmologist [no matter how you see the need to obfuscate] has said that wormholes categorically do not exist. Although many far more professional than yourself [and smarter] have said that the ether most certainly does not exist.

...categorically...hmmmm...!!!

So...paddoboy, why didn't you state : Although many far more professional than yourself [and smarter] have said that the ether categorically does not exist ?

As I tried to point out to you over 100 Posts ago, when I 'quoted' Dr. Matthew R. Francis - Wormholes do indeed exist : in Science Fiction ; for fun or for curiosity ; in wild speculative science ; in hypothetical constructs ; in Mathematical exercises...
And to Quote Dr. Francis directly :
"For large stable wormholes of the type claimed in this paper (or the types in Interstellar, Contact, Deep Space Nine, and other science fiction) we need to be wrong about a lot of different things that touch on several branches of fundamental science. We would need general relativity to be wrong in its own claims about itself, and we would need to fundamentally revise the way we interpret astronomical data. Much as I love the idea of wormholes, I love the reliability of general relativity — and reality — more."
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : https://galileospendulum.org/2015/01/26/why-wormholes-probably-dont-exist/

So, paddoboy, you cannot Honestly state, nor can anyone else Honestly state that "the Ether" CATEGORICALLY does not exist, nor that Wormholes CATEGORICALLY do not exist, nor even that Unicorns CATEGORICALLY do not exist...!!!
Simply because even if something only exists in Science Fiction ; for fun or for curiosity ; in wild speculative science ; in hypothetical constructs ; in Mathematical exercises...no one can Honestly state that that something Categorically does not exist...!!!

So...again, paddoboy, why didn't you state : Although many far more professional than yourself [and smarter] have said that the ether categorically does not exist ?

 

[Schmelzer]

All scientists worth their salt use GR: Even those not worth their salt!

As if this would be the question.

And it still is unsuccessful.

Not if you look at what has been reached. In comparison with, say, what has been reached by string theory.

There was a time when the predictions of GR were purely hypothetical.

But during this time none of the things you have mentioned have been used in any science fiction.

The same zero reason your ether is not discussed in academic circles.

No. The results of my published papers make it worth to be discussed. There are no comparable results of the ER=EPR idea.

Is this an example of low level conspiracy nonsense?

No. Because the complete ignorance - without any counterarguments - is simply a fact. And that ignorance is not an argument is also simply a fact. And no conspiracy (read something about what means conspiracy if you don't know the meaning of the word) is claimed.

Except it is a fairy tale. Did GR replace Newtonian?

It did. But how does this change the fact that quantum gravity will be different from GR, and therefore will replace GR?

And yet with the two or three cranks we have already denying all those GR inspired aspects, and your notable failure to admonish them, and rather pretend to admonish what we all know is a speculative scenario with regard to Professor Susskind, one may indeed repeat to you ??????????????
Think about it.

Of course I prefer to talk only about more or less interesting things. So I "fail to admonish" flat Earth theoreticians, astrology, and a lot more BS. I do not think I'm obliged to admonish all BS existing on Earth.

BH's are as good as confirmed as per in line with any reasonable definition of a scientific theory, as are gravitational waves: Wormholes of course remain speculative although no scientist worth his salt has ever said that they categorically do not exist.

What is confirmed are highly massive objects of quite small radius, which in GR would have to be BHs. But there are good reasons to think that near the GR horizon quantum effects become important - even if this is not the mainstream opinion.

And your new tantra is as .... as your old ones.

 

[The God]

As early as #5, I said this is weirdo...Still Paddoboy is going strong with it. Paddoboy, will you budge if Einstein categorically tells you personally from his grave...Pl no worm holes!

 

[expletives deleted]

I'll try one more time.

If I want to get a realistic indication of what is or is not possible in a given scenario, I do not go and ask for the personal and/or philosophical opinions of Laymen OR Scientists; I consult THE RELEVANT OBJECTIVELY DISCOVERED CONSISTENT SCIENCE itself.

And IF THE SCIENCE indicates strongly that something has been studied exhaustively for decades and all the relevant objectively arrived at results MILITATE STRONGLY AGAINST the assumption/speculation etc that something "can exist in physical reality", I must objectively accept the science, and must therefore conclude that THAT PARTICULAR "something" CANNOT PHYSICALLY EXIST IN FACT.

I don't go and ask for the personal and/or philosophical opinions of people; be they Laymen OR be they Scientists.

I, for one, would never presume to put Laymen or Scientists themselves 'personally' on the spot; by demanding that they "categorically" rule in or out the possibility of something's existence.

I ALWAYS consult THE SCIENCE itself; and leave Laymen and Scientists to say whatever they please as to their OPINIONS and SPECULATIONS and 'science' FICTION/FANTASIES, on the understanding that it is all said in their 'personal capacity'.

Which personal capacity is NOT THE BUSINESS OF SCIENCE METHODOLOGY (nor mine) to demand OR accept from them, any "categorical" personal/philosophical based assertions or beliefs about anything. That is their own personal business; which is irrelevant to what the objective science itself has to inform us on the relevant matter.

I trust that is clear. Thanks. Best.

 

[The God]

ED,

Even Paddoboy understands what you are saying, thats the way it is and it should be.

But there are a few problems..

1. Paddoboy is not exposed to formal study of science, not his fault, so he clings to what he understands as mainstream and treats mainstream science with awe and incredulity.

2. Of course if you do not understand the subject formally and not even exposed to basics, then you cannot analyse it critically.

3. Did you see his style of argument, copy pastes and links, why ? Because he cannot express in his words, lack of understanding of basics.

4. He has come too far in favor of mainstream, so he cannot openly be seen to accept anything, however persuasive that may be.

5. He brands most of critical view takers as agenda driven, God botherer etc. Trolls them, they loose their temper, few other illiterates join him and the thread gets crapped, Paddoboy thinks he is keeping all such critical view guys at bay, but actually it is THE loss as no decent discussion can take place.

 

[The God]

Duplicate post

 

[paddoboy]

So...again, paddoboy, why didn't you state : Although many far more professional than yourself [and smarter] have said that the ether categorically does not exist ?

Simply because the ether has some support.
But as usual your rhetoric does nothing that actually changes anything re the prime fact.
That is, no physicist has claimed that wormholes categorically do not exist...or if you prefer, no physicists has categorically claimed that wormholes do exist.
Whatever pleases you dmoe.

 

[paddoboy]

I'll try one more time.

All you need do ONCE is support what you claim.
You are unable to do that.

 

[paddoboy]

ED,

Even Paddoboy understands what you are saying, thats the way it is and it should be.

But there are a few problems..

1. Paddoboy is not exposed to formal study of science, not his fault, so he clings to what he understands as mainstream and treats mainstream science with awe and incredulity.

2. Of course if you do not understand the subject formally and not even exposed to basics, then you cannot analyse it critically.

3. Did you see his style of argument, copy pastes and links, why ? Because he cannot express in his words, lack of understanding of basics.

4. He has come too far in favor of mainstream, so he cannot openly be seen to accept anything, however persuasive that may be.

5. He brands most of critical view takers as agenda driven, God botherer etc. Trolls them, they loose their temper, few other illiterates join him and the thread gets crapped, Paddoboy thinks he is keeping all such critical view guys at bay, but actually it is THE loss as no decent discussion can take place.

More to the point is the obvious now known fact, that you and probably others are driven by religious agendas and the old god of the gaps arguments.
Plus of course being rank amateurs like myself.
The fact remains though, that no physicist has categorically stated that wormholes do not exist....while you have made plenty of noise re unsupported claims that BH's gravitational waves, GR, gravitational lensing etc etc all do not exist.
Plus the rather weird delusions that anything you say or that anyone else says on a science forum such as this, is making any difference.

 

[paddoboy]

As if this would be the question.

? No question involved: I'm stating categorically that no physicist will claim that wormholes do not exist.
I'm not concerned with any of your obfuscation that you are renowned for carrying on with in the political section.

Not if you look at what has been reached. In comparison with, say, what has been reached by string theory.

Ether hypothetical is dead and buried: String and its derivitives is still a work in progress.

But during this time none of the things you have mentioned have been used in any science fiction.

What difference does that make? Plus of course movies were in their infancy....but again, so what, you have evaded the point I make.

No. The results of my published papers make it worth to be discussed. There are no comparable results of the ER=EPR idea.

What results? The ER=EPR paper is also new and still under research while your ether is lost in oblivion.

No. Because the complete ignorance - without any counterarguments - is simply a fact. And that ignorance is not an argument is also simply a fact. And no conspiracy (read something about what means conspiracy if you don't know the meaning of the word) is claimed.

You make and do make unsupported claims here and elsewhere. I see that has attempted cosnspiracy.

It did. But how does this change the fact that quantum gravity will be different from GR, and therefore will replace GR?

GR works with Newtonian and gives the same answers within the Newtonian system but with greater accuracy. GR did not replce Newtonian: Newtonian is still used.
A QGT will not replace GR either.

Of course I prefer to talk only about more or less interesting things. So I "fail to admonish" flat Earth theoreticians, astrology, and a lot more BS. I do not think I'm obliged to admonish all BS existing on Earth.

You know damn well I'm referring to other aspects but I'll keep the kid gloves on at this stage and won't push your "bias"shall we say?

What is confirmed are highly massive objects of quite small radius, which in GR would have to be BHs. But there are good reasons to think that near the GR horizon quantum effects become important - even if this is not the mainstream opinion.

Agreed and have never said anything else. And it is the mainstream opinion but the quantum effects do not invalidate BH's You could though address that to our two on line "professionals" the god and expletive deleted. [tic mode on of course]

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Simply because the ether has some support.
But as usual your rhetoric does nothing that actually changes anything re the prime fact.

"Rhetoric", paddoboy? ... "Prime fact", paddoboy?
And would you be so kind as to explain : "your rhetoric does nothing that actually changes anything re the prime fact."???
I am not attempting to "change" anything, paddoboy!

That is, no physicist has claimed that wormholes categorically do not exist...or if you prefer, no physicists has categorically claimed that wormholes do exist.

Actually, paddoboy, many Scientists have "categorically" claimed that wormholes do exist...in Science Fiction ; for fun or for curiosity ; in wild speculative science ; in hypothetical constructs ; in Mathematical exercises...

Whatever pleases you dmoe.

It would "please" me, paddoboy, if you would show some Common Decency and Respect my oft repeated Requests that you not utilize the childish "Emojis" in your missives towards me...
What would "please" me the most, though, would be being able to engage in Open, Earnest and Honest discussion...with everyone on this Forum!

All cognitive readers know, paddoboy, exactly why you Post such empty statements as :

Whatever pleases you dmoe.

 

[Engell79]

Hi guys, i found this thread quite interesting, or rather some of it. Well the original post was interesting and informative.
how ever the following 7 pages(like reading an interview with a politician.) And hey thought id join in

Now question about the original post, and WH, didnt they recently discover some waves of some kind in some big machine that more or less proved the existence of black holes? http://www.space.com/33176-gravitational-waves-from-second-black-hole-collision.html

So why is it then impossible for two BH to be Entangled threw space?

 

[paddoboy]

"Rhetoric", paddoboy? ... "Prime fact", paddoboy?
And would you be so kind as to explain : "your rhetoric does nothing that actually changes anything re the prime fact."???
I am not attempting to "change" anything, paddoboy!

Yes, rhetoric dmoe, the same rhetoric you are well known for particularly with regards to myself and particularly with regards to moderators also.
Most of that baseless, inane rhetoric is in the fringes, and site feedback.

Those threads/posts show that open, honest and earnest debate with yourself is nigh impossible and futile.
Finally your continued childish remarks re emojis, actually are an example of that futility, particularly in light of your own "... "replies and other less than satisfactory answers.
Obviously you like to present an air of sophistication with your posts, yet you continue with the above nonsense and of course the general inane and illogical nature of your posts.
In saying all that, I will now consider taking into account the advice of moderators that the best thing is to ignore you, considering your past history.
You have a good day, ya hear!

Again of course the fact stands...
No physicist worth his salt [even those not worth their salt] will ever claim that wormholes do categorically not exist.
The best that can be said at this stage, is that it is unknown.

 

[Schmelzer]

I'm stating categorically that no physicist will claim that wormholes do not exist.

In this variant of your mantra, you are simply wrong. I claim that wormholes do not exist. (I would not add a "categorically" to this statement, because this makes no sense, that's all.)

Ether hypothetical is dead and buried: String and its derivitives is still a work in progress.

Given my published ether theories, which are compatible with all of established modern physics (GR, quantum theory, as well as SM), ether theory is also work in progress.

What difference does that make?

It justifies my claim that your "the once fictional aspect of gravitational waves, or cosmological redshift, or simply spacetime curvature" is nonsense.

What results? The ER=EPR paper is also new and still under research while your ether is lost in oblivion.

ER=EPR has reached nothing, my ether theory has given an explanation of the SM (with computation of all SM fermion fields, the SM gauge group, and the gauge charges of all fermion fields) and allows the quantization of gravity.

The only "counterargument" against my ether theories is ignorance. This is simply a fact - feel free to correct this fact by posting a link to a published rejection of my published papers.

You make and do make unsupported claims here and elsewhere. I see that has attempted cosnspiracy.

I have made the claim that the current way science is organized - with short term grants, which makes scientists the people with almost the highest job insecurity on the planet, is very counterproductive for independence of science (where we want independence, as in the case of judges, we give them extreme job security, think about this) and leads, predictably, to a concentration of research in a few fashionable mainstream directions. This is a purely economic argument, does not contain any conspiracy. (You can add conspiracy to it, if you like, by adding evil conspirators who want to kill independence of science and have, therefore, invented this system of short time grants to kill it, but I have never proposed this conspiracy extension.)

GR works with Newtonian and gives the same answers within the Newtonian system but with greater accuracy. GR did not replce Newtonian: Newtonian is still used.
A QGT will not replace GR either.

GR does not work with Newtonian. It is a completely different theory. It has a Newtonian limit, where Newtonian computations can be used as a reasonable approximation. As well as flat Earth theory can be used as a reasonable approximation on the soccer playfield, and as GR can be used as an approximation of QGT in classical situations.

You know damn well I'm referring to other aspects but I'll keep the kid gloves on at this stage and won't push your "bias"shall we say?

No I don't. Ok, closer to the forum. You have seen my discussion with Q-reeus where I have defended completely classical GR. But I feel no obligation to comment, for example, "Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'". By the way, the very idea to suggest that a proponent of some alternative theory has any favorable bias toward other alternative theories is complete nonsense.

You could though address that to our two on line "professionals"

If I see them making a specific error, no problem. If they simply express some general doubts, there would be no point.

didnt they recently discover some waves of some kind in some big machine that more or less proved the existence of black holes? So why is it then impossible for two BH to be Entangled threw space?

Yes, as far as proofs are possible in science. Science always has to make presuppositions. It always relies on general theories, and that these general theories are true cannot be proven in principle.

So, the interpretation of what is observed relies on GR. What has been observed are, in GR, gravitational waves, and the objects have to be sufficiently heavy objects, which have rotated around each other very fast, until they have hit each other. All this nicely fits with GR computations.

The problem is that GR is only a classical theory, thus, cannot be the final truth. The main problem of its incompatibility with quantum theory is that time is handled in above theories in a completely different and incompatible way. The time of quantum theory is, essentially, Newtonian time. To incorporate special-relativistic time dilation is not that problematic, but conceptually remembers more the Lorentz ether, with dilated clock time, than true fundamental relativistic symmetry. Near the BH horizon, time dilation becomes infinite. If something changes with this, for very large time dilation factors, then it becomes quite possible that these very compact objects, which look, from the outside, very much like GR black holes, may be, in reality, stable stars of a size close to a Schwarzschild black hole radius, but not really GR black holes.

And, of course, in a theory of quantum gravity, there will be entanglement of different states of the gravitational fields. Including those of black holes or what replaces them. But that this has something to do with the classical field configurations which are known as ER bridges is nothing but a wild association, and nothing serious.

 

[paddoboy]

Hi guys, i found this thread quite interesting, or rather some of it. Well the original post was interesting and informative.
how ever the following 7 pages(like reading an interview with a politician.) And hey thought id join in

Now question about the original post, and WH, didnt they recently discover some waves of some kind in some big machine that more or less proved the existence of black holes? http://www.space.com/33176-gravitational-waves-from-second-black-hole-collision.html

So why is it then impossible for two BH to be Entangled threw space?

As you well know Engell, forums such as this are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry', most with various agendas including religious and the old god of the gaps arguments which they like to portray and suggest, albeit it ever so subtly, and we have our share of them here.
Of course you are correct, it is not impossible, although still highly theoretical, just as certain in fact that no physicists will ever say that wormholes do not categorically exist.

 

[paddoboy]

In this variant of your mantra, you are simply wrong. I claim that wormholes do not exist. (I would not add a "categorically" to this statement, because this makes no sense, that's all.)

Your imagined mantra aside, I am most definitely correct and no amount of denying that will change it.
You simply will not add "categorically" to your statement, simply because it would be wrong.
But once again your methodology of sidestepping and obfuscation is well know in this forum, particularly in the political threads.

Given my published ether theories, which are compatible with all of established modern physics (GR, quantum theory, as well as SM), ether theory is also work in progress.

More obfuscation? We also have a paper on supposed BNS by a god botherer , "god of the gaps" poster: That doesn't make it a work in progress.

It justifies my claim that your "the once fictional aspect of gravitational waves, or cosmological redshift, or simply spacetime curvature" is nonsense.

No, just more examples of you obfuscating to avoid admitting error. Between 1916 and 1919, the predictionss of GR, were hypothetical and speculative:Fact.

ER=EPR has reached nothing, my ether theory has given an explanation of the SM (with computation of all SM fermion fields, the SM gauge group, and the gauge charges of all fermion fields) and allows the quantization of gravity.

Sure, so why does it still languish uncited and unknown virtually: And please do not stoop to conspiracy crap.

The only "counterargument" against my ether theories is ignorance. This is simply a fact - feel free to correct this fact by posting a link to a published rejection of my published papers.

I'm not a professional Schmelzer, but many papers like yours, with no evidence supporting them, all languish and eventually die in oblivion without any counter argument. You see the true professionals do not have the time nor the inclination to refute/deride every Joe Blow that decides to put in a paper, nor do they have the time to refute the cranks and trolls and the many anti GR claims made on forums such as this.

GR does not work with Newtonian. It is a completely different theory. It has a Newtonian limit, where Newtonian computations can be used as a reasonable approximation. As well as flat Earth theory can be used as a reasonable approximation on the soccer playfield, and as GR can be used as an approximation of QGT in classical situations.

Nonsense and again obfuscating. GR could be used in many Newtonian applications and it would give far more accurate answers, but that accuracy is simply not needed. Hence the fact that even for most Space exploratory endeavours, Newtonian is used.
Approximations do not make a theory wrong if the answers given solve a particular problem.
GR is a correct theory in all respects in its known classical parameters, although obviously denying that, is to appear to give your own hypothetical some credibility.

No I don't. Ok, closer to the forum. You have seen my discussion with Q-reeus where I have defended completely classical GR. But I feel no obligation to comment, for example, "Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'". By the way, the very idea to suggest that a proponent of some alternative theory has any favorable bias toward other alternative theories is complete nonsense.

No one comments on "Sylwesters Ever LASTING THEORY" He is considered a novelty. Again just an example of you avoiding the issue re the cranks that deny spacetime curvature, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift, gravitational radiation etc. I'm sure if I was a similar inclined god bothering, god of the gaps proposer, you would be into me like a rat up a drain pipe!

The problem is that GR is only a classical theory, thus, cannot be the final truth.

Just as I have informed you a few times now. That does not make it incorrect though, nor does it give any credibility to, or justify any ether theory.
Even a QGT may not cover all contingencies, simply it is or will extend the parameters of GR is the only thing we can be sure of.
The possibility even exists that we may never have one that can be validated as observations at those levels require super technically advanced technology that may be unattainable.
String theory and its derivitives could be examples of applications that we simply are unable to verify due to our limitations.