Our universe through a wormhole

[GreekTTC]

Harry,

Posts of a scientific nature that make claims about anything without proof or evidence are useless. When you blindly assert some of your "facts" like they're truths without saying why you believe them to be true, those "facts" are useless.

Like it's been said...if you are posting OPINIONS, make it clear. If you are posting what you believe to be fact, then back those facts up with real evidence.

If you didn't already figure this all out just by reading the other replies in this thread...I'm sorry...I don't think we can help.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Tormod


Read your link on the speed of Gravity

Now I'm more confused after reading the following link

http://metaresearch.org/media%20and%...G-Kopeikin.asp

quote:
"Contrary to Kopeikin's announced result, reference [10] shows that the speed of light is no longer a universal speed limit. Travel and communication at unlimited speeds are now possible. These take place in forward time, creating no paradoxes. (E.g., you can't go back in time and kill your own grandfather when he was still a child.) Nothing at all about the mathematical theory of relativity is altered. However, the experimental interpretation of special relativity now favors Lorentz's version over Einstein's. And the experimental interpretation of general relativity now favors the force interpretation (as preferred by Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman, among others) over the geometric interpretation ("curved space-time")."


I'm interested in your opinion. I'm up in the air about this one.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Now I'm more confused after reading the following link

http://metaresearch.org/media%20and%...G-Kopeikin.asp

And so you should be. Is it wise to acquire your understanding of science form press releases? Is it sensible to place a high level of confidence in the pronouncements of an organisation which declares Intuitively, most of us understand that an idea's popularity is no more an appropriate measure of its validity today than it has been at any other time in history. Yet those who question any widely accepted theories are labeled ignorant, and if they persist are branded cranks, charlatans, or worse. Meta Research does not claim to have all the answers. But here at least it is safe to ask the rude questions... and to make a case for alternative hypotheses

Now that sounds superficially very fine, very noble, very scientific. However, it is a spurious argument. Good science has nothing to do with popularity. In science a popular theory is one that has stood up to the rigours of peer review; which had been validated in a variety of ways; which has been tested by making predictions that were realised; that is capable of falsification, yet has never been falsified.

True, there is some inertia within the scientific process that can delay the adoption of novel ideas. Most who have read Khun's views on scientific revolutions understand this. That is quite different from justifying an emotional, illogical, non-peer reviewed attack on the current position, which is what the Meta-Research group appear to be doing.

As I understand it, it is possible that gravity propagates at speeds greater than c. It is just not very likely, and the weight of evidence and theory justify c as the applicable constant. Support for the alternate view does not seem to be found in the writings of Meta-Research.

[Harry Costas]

Thank you eclogite

Now have you got more info on the speed of gravity.

I'm still not convinced which is right or wrong.

[ryan2006]

What would you say meta physically about the world being created in six days and on the seventh god rested? What is meta physics anyway it I escaped Paradoxes illuminated and origins whatever a month ago because people were so rude. I could have committed suicide if they would have persisted so I just left now you come to this site Harry and follow in their path but your an optimist of a different kind you like to get into other peoples business and I am glad you are not into my personal business otherwise I'd leave this site say Harry if your ideas are so great why don't you post them on your own thread instead of invading this one.

[Amtekoth]

From the Meta Research press release (above): "A common thought experiment asks: "What would happen to the Earth's orbit if the Sun suddenly ceased to exist?" The answer is now clear. The usual relationship "force is the gradient of the potential" would instantly end. The Sun's potential field would then begin to dissipate, taking 8.3 minutes to dissipate out to the distance of the Earth's orbit; so effects such as light-bending and clock-slowing would persist for that long. But the Newtonian component of gravitational force, the force that keeps Earth in its orbit, would cease almost instantly, and Earth would fly off along a straight line like a weight on a spinning merry-go-round that broke free from its moorings. "

Back in 1983, when I was in college, I was posing this EXACT idea to physics and math major friends of mine. They all disputed the idea, but could offer up no more proof than saying, "nothing is faster than light."

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,did not mean to offend you
Black Holes FAQ
(Frequently Asked Questions)

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html
quote:

"What is a white hole?
---------------------
The equations of general relativity have an interesting mathematical property: they are symmetric in time. That means that you can take any solution to the equations and imagine that time flows backwards rather than forwards, and you'll get another valid solution to the equations. If you apply this rule to the solution that describes black holes, you get an object known as a white hole. Since a black hole is a region of space from which nothing can escape, the time-reversed version of a black hole is a region of space into which nothing can fall. In fact, just as a black hole can only suck things in, a white hole can only spit things out.

White holes are a perfectly valid mathematical solution to the equations of general relativity, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist in nature. In fact, they almost certainly do not exist, since there's no way to produce one. (Producing a white hole is just as impossible as destroying a black hole, since the two processes are time-reversals of each other.)

Back to Black Hole Question List

What is a wormhole?
-------------------
So far, we have only considered ordinary "vanilla" black holes. Specifically, we have been talking all along about black holes that are not rotating and have no electric charge. If we consider black holes that rotate and/or have charge, things get more complicated. In particular, it is possible to fall into such a black hole and not hit the singularity. In effect, the interior of a charged or rotating black hole can "join up" with a corresponding white hole in such a way that you can fall into the black hole and pop out of the white hole. This combination of black and white holes is called a wormhole.

The white hole may be somewhere very far away from the black hole; indeed, it may even be in a "different Universe" -- that is, a region of spacetime that, aside from the wormhole itself, is completely disconnected from our own region. A conveniently-located wormhole would therefore provide a convenient and rapid way to travel very large distances, or even to travel to another Universe. Maybe the exit to the wormhole would lie in the past, so that you could travel back in time by going through. All in all, they sound pretty cool.

But before you apply for that research grant to go search for them, there are a couple of things you should know. First of all, wormholes almost certainly do not exist. As we said above in the section on white holes, just because something is a valid mathematical solution to the equations doesn't mean that it actually exists in nature. In particular, black holes that form from the collapse of ordinary matter (which includes all of the black holes that we think exist) do not form wormholes. If you fall into one of those, you're not going to pop out anywhere. You're going to hit a singularity, and that's all there is to it.

Furthermore, even if a wormhole were formed, it is thought that it would not be stable. Even the slightest perturbation (including the perturbation caused by your attempt to travel through it) would cause it to collapse.

Finally, even if wormholes exist and are stable, they are quite unpleasant to travel through. Radiation that pours into the wormhole (from nearby stars, the cosmic microwave background, etc.) gets blueshifted to very high frequencies. As you try to pass through the wormhole, you will get fried by these X-rays and gamma rays."

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

White holes are a perfectly valid mathematical solution to the equations of general relativity, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist in nature. In fact, they almost certainly do not exist, since there's no way to produce one. (Producing a white hole is just as impossible as destroying a black hole, since the two processes are time-reversals of each other.)

oh really? what about a black hole that hawking radiates itself out of exsistance? BAM time reversal of a white hole been created!

[Harry Costas]

Hello Jay



http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q8
quote

"How do black holes evaporate?
-----------------------------
This is a tough one. Back in the 1970's, Stephen Hawking came up with theoretical arguments showing that black holes are not really entirely black: due to quantum-mechanical effects, they emit radiation. The energy that produces the radiation comes from the mass of the black hole. Consequently, the black hole gradually shrinks. It turns out that the rate of radiation increases as the mass decreases, so the black hole continues to radiate more and more intensely and to shrink more and more rapidly until it presumably vanishes entirely.

Actually, nobody is really sure what happens at the last stages of black hole evaporation: some researchers think that a tiny, stable remnant is left behind. Our current theories simply aren't good enough to let us tell for sure one way or the other. As long as I'm disclaiming, let me add that the entire subject of black hole evaporation is extremely speculative. It involves figuring out how to perform quantum-mechanical (or rather quantum-field-theoretic) calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with experiments. Physicists *think* that we have the correct theories to make predictions about black hole evaporation, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.

Now why do black holes evaporate? Here's one way to look at it, which is only moderately inaccurate. (I don't think it's possible to do much better than this, unless you want to spend a few years learning about quantum field theory in curved space.) One of the consequences of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics is that it's possible for the law of energy conservation to be violated, but only for very short durations. The Universe is able to produce mass and energy out of nowhere, but only if that mass and energy disappear again very quickly. One particular way in which this strange phenomenon manifests itself goes by the name of vacuum fluctuations. Pairs consisting of a particle and antiparticle can appear out of nowhere, exist for a very short time, and then annihilate each other. Energy conservation is violated when the particles are created, but all of that energy is restored when they annihilate again. As weird as all of this sounds, we have actually confirmed experimentally that these vacuum fluctuations are real.

Now, suppose one of these vacuum fluctuations happens near the horizon of a black hole. It may happen that one of the two particles falls across the horizon, while the other one escapes. The one that escapes carries energy away from the black hole and may be detected by some observer far away. To that observer, it will look like the black hole has just emitted a particle. This process happens repeatedly, and the observer sees a continuous stream of radiation from the black hole."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is theory and the amount of input by matter into a Black Hole, I would think is greater than any form of eveaporation.

Anyway,,,,,,,,i'm off to bed

[ryan2006]

Harry and all who may be concerned,

I apologize I suffer from a mental illness it is no fault of anyones that I am the way I am. My psychiatrist once told me that I had an overproductive imagination but that imagination has lead me to this site so I do feel a bit of pride in knowing that I am abnormal. It does cause problems however because it is hard for me to explain to others when I do have an issue but please do not take it personal it is only my illness. I went to school for art and psychology I always took great intrest in helping other people overcome their problems and was planning on being an art therapist when I became ill. I believe some of the ideas that I have proposed on this site and the other have some problems. Yesterday I was graced to find out that N.A.S.A. had stimulated with computer programs that two black holes could merge and they were able to replicate Eiensteins gravitational wave theory, but it was pointed out to me that if two black holes merged would it create a new universe. Again I apologize for lashing out.

Sincerely,

Ryan J. Henningsgaard