A Russian physicist has calculated what equipment is needed to detect the radiation signature of a wormhole, a theoretical body derived from Einstein's theory of general relativity that serves as a transition point between distant regions of space. Who said stargate?
By Ian O'Neill, Universe Today
Discovering black holes is an easy task, at least compared to searching for wormholes. The gravitational effect of black holes on planets, stars and even galaxies can be measured, they create radiation and produce jets and acceleration disks. Black holes even deflect light using the gravitational lensing phenomenon. But try to find a wormhole? A Russian researcher believes that he has found the answer to the question of how to discover a wormhole if this phenomenon does exist, but for this purpose it is necessary to use a much more sensitive radio telescope than the most sensitive radio telescopes available today and a lot of patience, to find the special signature of a wormhole.
The existence of wormholes is a valid consequence of Einstein's theory of general relativity. A wormhole, in theory, serves as a shortcut or tunnel through space and time. According to the various theories, there are also wormholes that connect two universes, two separate points in the same universe, and those that connect a black hole with a white hole, but the physics of all of them is the same, a black hole creates a link between two points in space-time and bypasses the need for the usual three-dimensional journey through space . Also, in theory, matter can move through a wormhole tunnel. For example, they star in works of science fiction such as Stargate and Star Trek - Deep Space 9. If wormholes exist, it is unlikely that we will be able to find a guide that allows us to open the mouth of the black hole near us, they will probably be so elusive that we will need special equipment to travel Through them, a journey that thus becomes almost impossible.
Alexander Shatsky from the Lebedev Institute of Physics in Moscow, came up with an idea of how to observe wormholes. In the first stage, they can be distinguished from black holes - the glow of wormholes does not contain an event horizon. Second, if matter can travel through wormholes, light surely can, but the light emission would have to be strongly tilted at a characteristic angle. If we were to observe the mouth of a wormhole, we would see a circle reminiscent of a bubble in which strong light is projected from the "crater". But looking towards the center, we can notice that the light suddenly dims. In the center itself we will notice that there is no light, but we can look straight through the mouth of the wormhole and see stars (from the other side of the universe) shining directly in front of us.
As for the possibility of observing the mouth of a wormhole, it will be necessary to use radio interferometers to look deep into the massive environment of the galactic nuclei and differentiate between the cosmic ghost and black holes that exist in most galactic centers.
However, just the fact that wormholes are theoretically possible, does not mean that they exist. They could simply be mathematical remnants of general relativity. And even if they do exist, they tend to be very unstable, so the possibility of time and space travel through them would be short-lived.
Besides, the radiation exiting the wormhole will be heavily blue-biased, so burnout should be expected quickly. Don't pack your things for now.
For the news in Universe Today
On the same topic on the science website
53 תגובות
I don't understand why looking for things that may or may not exist. And even if they exist they are very dangerous.
We don't need nature for that. God gave us understanding and intelligence, we can produce it alone.
True, it's going to take a lot of resources and we'll probably have to take materials from other spheres like the moon and the like.
But once we have created a large slide or "jumping point" we are probably on a "worm - slide" at first it will be "small" in the size of a light year. And slowly we will increase it. And that's how we can send from Earth for a start cameras and explore closer galaxies if we find life. We did not find? We will increase the scale and the range. (In the future there will even be a site that will show the size of the scale.
It sounds the most logical, but of course if this wormhole turns out to be a positive and good thing, then I take my hat off, we have made a significant achievement for the sake of humanity as a whole. (We can easily settle in planets that have Earth conditions instead of settling Mars). We could move a permanent slide between Mars and Earth without needing a spacecraft at all. You can do a lot of things but the search for space seems to be working slowly as if we are reaching the age of 200. I am 30 years old and want to the end of my life I don't know when they will happen I want to be in space I want to be a part of it. And like me there are millions more who deserve this right before they leave the world forever
By the way, Yehuda:
The truth is that I was expecting your response but I thought it would be completely different.
You know that I don't blindly follow prejudices and that all my words are well reasoned and also that my opinions are actually interesting as you even bothered to point out sometimes.
I thought that this time you would be able to rise above the petty argument, the whole reason of which is a wounded ego and precisely to protect me from Ofer's slander.
What to do - I was disappointed in you again.
To Judah:
I don't usually make fun of Hebrew in meaningful comments.
In comments that do not deserve a response, I allow myself to do so.
The Hebrew errors that characterize Ofer, by the way, are not the errors of a new immigrant, but of someone who failed to internalize the rules of declension of verbs - those that are precisely characterized by Sabras.
There is no content in his response beyond preaching immoral morality.
The only thing he claimed is that he has claims that he does not want to detail.
Other than that he was just blaspheming.
It is not fair to attack commenters based only on the quality of the Hebrew they speak. We are a receptive country where many take their first steps in any field and also in the Hebrew language.
Beyond the Hebrew, isn't Ofer's response supposed to provoke thoughts. What is he saying to Michael? Don't blindly follow your previous, well-known, boring opinions.
Answering in a disparaging tone to Ofer, Yehuda and others adds nothing to a legitimate and fair scientific debate.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Ofer:
The only response your words deserve is that you don't even know Hebrew
Michael listen!
It looks like you understand what you're saying, but a closer reading of your comments shows that you really do not.
I won't go into detail because I don't have time to have a discussion with you here, but I will just say that your views regarding the essence of science are fundamentally wrong, and I will explain:
They are correct from the beginning - your entire description of how a scientist should behave here and there, and within that is also the matter of questioning everything and finding evidence and not blindly following something without checking it, etc...
But they turn out to be wrong in your case - you follow your boring opinions like a blind man (I don't understand how a person can't at least be fascinated by the mysteries of the universe, and even more than that, even dismiss it with an argument that says more or less - anything mysterious that we don't know is unscientific and therefore wrong ), and does not at all attempt to cast doubt on what is already considered known, even if this is required by new evidence.
And so in conclusion, you are also not going to step forward in anything.
To remind you once upon a time everyone thought the world was flat...
To Judah:
I don't know what you want.
According to your words, it seems to me that instead of applying to the universe the rules whose existence we have already observed, you prefer to apply to it rules that we have not observed.
I don't know why I even bother to comment because it seems to me that beyond science books, you don't read the comments either, but anyway.
There is a difference between short-term forecasting and deducing from what we know about another ten percent of the range or even one hundred percent of the range.
If someone decides from the movement of Pluto at a distance of fifty astronomical units that gravitation will operate according to the same Newtonian formulas even at a distance of one hundred astronomical units, let's say.
This too, as we see in the Pioneer anomaly, should be done carefully.
But to deduce from their behavior the gravitations of bodies at a distance of a thousand light years on billions?
The same goes for the gravitational behavior of very heavy or very dense bodies. Is it really possible to predict/predict the behavior of holes, black holes?, singular points?
The academy prefers the easy thing, which is to relate what is acceptable to the entire universe with the help of a stupid and misleading principle of a "physical principle" which is more than a soul and has nothing in it.
Sometimes we make a misleading use of the rules just to apply the aforementioned universals. For example, "Occam's Razor". As long as Occam's Razor is used to choose between options by preferring the simple, then that's fine by me, but, if someone decides that he wants to dominate the This simple over the entire universe and justifies it by the same rule, to this I strongly oppose!, the simplicity did not give the law or theory any rights beyond the range of our measurements. And again, this is not about increasing a range of individual percentages, which should also be done carefully.
This is not a prediction of the weather for the next week, but a projection of laws for huge ranges of mass, energy and time.
All I'm saying:
devote more to increasing the range.
It is clear to everyone that if it is discovered that gravity behaves differently at ranges of a light year or in dense masses, the whole basis of black holes, wormholes and singular points will collapse.
And in addition, regarding certain commenters, maybe, after all, they will try to come out of their academic shell, and try to get to the bottom of my opinion and not cancel them outright. These are things that are said after a lot of thought, although, I admit, they are also not acceptable, and may even require correction from time to time. (totally legit)
may we have a nice week.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Roy:
What you said is indeed consistent with what Roy Cezana and I claim all the time (and in fact you repeated some of our words), but the debate with Yehuda went beyond the limits you presented because Yehuda, as even he said, does not think that science is meant to enable prediction, does not think that his predictions should be put to the test and in fact He would like to tell all the physicists to stop with their nonsense and start doing what he tells them - not because he knows what the correct theory is - after all, he doesn't claim to know what it is either - but just like that - because until now they have not listened to him.
Besides, many of the discoveries made in the experiment were made only because theories developed to answer certain questions predicted them. It provides serious confirmation of the existence of all kinds of things we haven't seen.
On the other hand, we have already seen Yehuda defend teachings that predict things that have been proven experimentally that do not exist without this fact disturbing him.
In other words - it is not just that we do not accept his approach just because it is not visible to us.
I repeat and summarize - the debate is much deeper and it is indeed in the field of philosophy.
To Roy
Listen, it was an unusual compliment to say it was better than survival.
So good night everyone
Bye gravity
Bye to the dark mass
And my Kinneret tomorrow I will ask
Have you ever had a dream?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please allow me to enter into the debate here...
Man, you crossed the border of science to the border of philosophy. The good news is you are not the first to argue about this. The bad news is that there is still no answer. For the sake of the matter, how do we know that atoms exist, since I have never seen an atom in my life. Neither do you. Perhaps you have seen its consequences or phenomena that you believe are due to it. In terms of philosophy, he is a "theoretical yes". No one saw and no one heard Atom. We believe that there really is an atom and it is made up of electrons, neutrons and protons and that some of them are made up of other particles. This is roughly what Sabdarmish Yehuda thinks.
You cannot deny him, and you have no proof that he is wrong. But it just doesn't seem to us (me too), so we rule it out. For me, I see science today as one big theory without verifications. I believe that science so far gives results, but takes them with a limited guarantee.
You can keep arguing, to be honest I quite enjoyed it. It's much better than survival 🙂
In the meantime, they still haven't managed to complete MOND so that it handles the observed relativistic phenomena, and even though they think there is a good chance that they will find a way to do this, they know that the resulting theory will be much more complicated.
Yehuda,
Each person has his own opinion. You think there is a problem with the existing theory, but you are not ready to commit to a different solution. Millions of physicists who practice their profession and who you probably think have never bothered to look beyond their noses, also think there is a problem, but use the existing solution until another proven solution is presented.
Ockham's razor (which I actually remember that you objected to a few comments ago), very nicely justifies the dark mass. It is easier to believe that there is a mass that we cannot see with the current means of measurement than to believe that we need to change Newton's laws, which have served us so faithfully.
To make such a change, you need a very good proof, and it simply hasn't been received yet. On the day you are admitted, we will salute Professor Milgrom and he will become the new Einstein.
Until then, good night.
Roy.
No, it is not a prophecy, because things are not proven in advance. It's like saying that tomorrow I'm not going to the moon. Is this a prophecy?
There can be no proof of dark mass, dark energy, etc. that are at distances of tens of thousands of light years and even millions of light years, based on formulas tested at ranges of a thousand light years (the reduced solar system) this is millions or billions of times the range of our measurements. This is not about a weather forecast that is made for next week based on last week. Because, from the weather this week we decide on the weather in 299,792,458.
If anything, the only prophecy in my response was the snow around the Sea of Galilee, but I have extenuating circumstances, I relied on the prophecy of others.
Oh Kinneret, my Kinneret.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Now I finally understand:
It is not just that Judah entrusts the prediction of the future to the prophets: he claims to be a prophet himself.
Finally everything is clear.
I hope it is also clear that even if some of his words come true it will have nothing to do with the (non-existent) claims contained in "everything he says"
For anyone who argues with Yehuda
Nothing will help me
Despite everything I say
You will continue on your way and reach the great scientific progress that it is
dark mass, dark energy, black holes, wormholes,
And what at the peak of scientific discovery -
Blue singular points which are on the seashore.
And forgive me if I forgot something.
Strengthen and adopt!
Let me just assure you that most of these findings will be proven to be nonsense within a decade.
What is most important is that tomorrow it will start to snow around the Sea of Galilee, real snow not virtual.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For anyone who argues with Yehuda:
You have no chance.
He sees the role of science differently than you (and the rest of the world).
The brain developed during evolution because the knowledge it stores and its inference mechanisms allow animals to predict the future better and consequently distinguish between dangers and opportunities and avoid the former and take advantage of the latter. Our curiosity also developed for these reasons and so did our desire and ability in the field of pattern recognition. Science is the transfer of what has developed in us personally as living beings from the domain of the individual to the domain of the general and its role is to allow us to understand the world better, among other things, to better prepare for the future.
Yehuda thinks that science should not predict and he leaves this task to the prophets.
Even if we ignore the fact that prophets do not exist and that in fact he is willing to give up all the ability of the human race to prepare for the future, in this definition he also gives up one of the main activities that science deals with, which is the validation of the findings through an experiment (and indeed his responses were written precisely in this context).
For him, it is enough for science to invent a story that agrees with the past and even the simplicity of the story is not important.
In short - he wants a scientific enterprise different from the one that the scientists maintain both in its goals and in its actions.
It is possible to argue about the most appropriate course of action when there is agreement on the goals, but if the goals are different there is no point in arguing about the path.
We can only be happy that the goals of the scientific establishment match our goals and not those of Judah (neither the stated ones nor the real ones).
why new
Your response is interesting, and with your permission, and I will consider it completely.
1. To Judah
Did you hear about the anomaly in the orbit of Hema
2. Answer: Yes, and it is called the precession of the planet Hema.
3. Newtonian physics could not explain it
But general relativity does.
Suppose you add more elements to Newton's formula so that you cook up a formula that takes into account the star's gravity and solves the problem
4. Answer: If you increase the power of R to 2.00000016 instead of 2, this will solve the problem.
5. In my opinion the scientific establishment will not accept this.
6. Answer: True, he did not accept it.
7. Because he is looking for a comprehensive solution that will be more accurate than the theory of relativity and will include additional components, for example a connection between quantum theory and relativity or what will be found beyond the event horizon inside a black hole.
8. Answer: True.
9. An alternative example to Newton's theory is Ptolemy's
It is possible to invent complicated formulas to find the position of the planets according to time, but this is not a comprehensive theory.
10. Answer: You are right here too.
11. That is why I and the scientific establishment expect a comprehensive theory from you
If possible you will give a solution to all aspects of physics
I can confirm it with many observations and experiments.
12. Answer: Here I disagree with you.
A. Don't get me wrong, the scientific establishment doesn't expect anything from me. Lots of good souls would make "excuses" if I ignored your comment.
B. But what is the solution expected from the scientists? Is there really a solution to all aspects of physics? Is there a scientist who knows what all the aspects of physics are? Aristotle knew?, Newton knew? Maybe Einstein?, none of them knew. The only ones who know are perhaps the prophets and I strongly disagree with the assumption that scientists should be prophets. Scientists need to explain only what is known about the universe, which is much less than what you defined in your response as "all aspects of physics", and from all the correct explanations to clarify the simple one.
third. I'm sorry for geniuses like Newton who didn't know how to be good enough prophets to guess the theory of relativity, but, was there really anyone at the time who was able to guess this? The scientists were set a very high bar that they will never be able to overcome and that is to guess all the future aspects of physics and give them a solution. Sorry, I don't agree with the challengers above. In my humble opinion, Ptolemy, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and Einstein are great scientists only because of their success in explaining everything known in their time and I don't expect them to "predict" in addition. What do you even know what will happen in addition? , there are endless options on this "plus".
True, I agree with you that this is not the accepted opinion, and the accepted opinion is also to give the prophecy to scientists. So what to do, my opinions are not accepted. Be that as it may, I sleep well with it.
May I have a pleasant Shabbat rest.
Does anyone know what the situation is in Kinneret?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Judah
Did you hear about the anomaly in the orbit of Hema
Newtonian physics could not explain it
But general relativity does.
Suppose you add additional ingredients to Newton's formula so that you cook a formula that takes into account the star's gravity and solves the problem
In my opinion, the scientific establishment will not accept this.
Because he is looking for a comprehensive solution that will be more accurate than the theory of relativity and will include additional components, for example a connection between quantum theory and relativity or what will be found beyond the event horizon inside a black hole.
An alternative example to Newton's theory is Ptolemy's
It is possible to invent complicated formulas to find the position of the planets according to time, but this is not a comprehensive theory.
That is why I and the scientific establishment expect a comprehensive theory from you
If possible you will give a solution to all aspects of physics
I can confirm it with many observations and experiments.
To Roy
Wherever Newton is right Professor Milgrom is also right. The reason is as you also say, the experiment that will differentiate between them has not yet been discovered. That is, in the current known range of the two above-mentioned theories, both are correct and none of them is better, except perhaps Ockham's principle of simplicity (and I'm really not sure that Newton with his dark mass and energy, is simpler than Milgram and his tiny correction to Newton's second law).
Therefore applying a cosmological principle or universality to only one of these theories, Newton, is an unfair preference, although I admit - an acceptable preference.
Another "unfair" thing you did was to confront Milgrom also with the dark mass that is, she, a physical being created only to balance Newton's imprecise formulas. It is clear that in this way no theory can confront Newton. And really other physical beings created to maintain the "sanctity" of Newton's formulas are the dark energy, virtual particles and perhaps even negative mass. In this way, Newton's formulas will be sacred forever.
Note another "unfair" thing you did in your response.
You are allowed to add dark mass and dark energy and repulsive force of the void, etc., all of which, in my opinion, are really, really, scarabs blooming in the cosmos, but if Professor Milgrom finds a way to explain the universe without the "dark" things of mass and energy, then is that scarab for you?
Some respect for Professor Milgrom!
I must add that apart from Professor Milgrom's explanation of gravitation and the problem of inconsistency in the movement of spiral galaxies, I found about ten other equally good explanations, so that it will not be understood from my fighting for Milgrom's MOND that I am a follower of this theory, although I think it is very interesting and correct in its negative view of Mass and dark energy.
In conclusion
Already in the first sentence of your response, your preference for Newton is revealed (with Einstein's corrections, of course), but this is unfair because always where Newton is proven, Milgrom is also right.
And as I said, there are infinitely more correct options besides Milgrom and Newton, and this is because of uncertainties in the measurements.
I always ask myself the question: what would Newton have done if he had known the strange movement of the spiral galaxies, would he have stuck to his formulas or changed them?, food for thought.
May we have a good day, a little rain, and may the Kinneret be filled already.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
The reason Newton is more accepted is simple. It was tested in many experiments (along with Einstein's corrections) and proved to be correct.
Of course, these experiments were conducted only in our immediate area, but this is enough for us to assume that his laws can be applied to the entire universe.
Excessive discount? Maybe. But I repeat that any other possibility is baseless until proven.
Milgrom's MOND theory is a plausible possibility, as far as I know. To prove it, Milgrom must give an example of an event that could only be explained with the help of the theory, and not with the help of the dark mass. As soon as he does so, a change of thought will occur, and all physicists will be very happy and will begin to investigate the theory intensively. But until he does, this theory is just an unproven hypothesis, like that noble species of scarab that lays its eggs in black holes.
Good Day,
Roy.
To Roy
a quote:
If you believe what you say, you are welcome to conduct research around the possibility that there is a giant scarab at the center of every 'black hole'. End quote.
As I said, because of uncertainty in measurements, every physical phenomenon has an infinite number of formulas to explain it. Unfortunately, Roy, none of them lead to the quote you said about the existence of scarabs in black men, so there is no reason for me to choose or discuss this possibility. On the other hand, the example I gave about the MOND theory and Newton's second law is an existing possibility. In both cases, Newton and the MOND theory will give correct results in normal measurement ranges, but beyond the aforementioned measurement ranges, Newton and MOND will give different results. So why should one of them be preferred beyond the range of measurements?, why should Newton be preferred over Professor Milgrom? Because Newton is more acceptable?
It must be said that choosing the path of Professor Milgrom and the MOND theory will avoid the need for a dark mass and it explains well the movement of galaxies without it.
So, please, don't go in the direction of scaring black guys, just explain to me why one correct explanation should be preferred over a second correct explanation. Because why prefer one correct explanation over a illusory explanation of scarabs in black guys I know
Have a good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Roy:
There is a Freudian error in your appeal to Gillian.
You suggested that she point to cases that "confirm" her claims.
If her claims were serious, it would have been necessary to confirm them. In their current state they do need to be restored.
To Judah:
It is clear to you that I do not agree with most of your words and I find no point in detailing.
You are welcome to continue calling yourself a scientist and work directly on the Nobel Prize without bothering yourself with trifles along the way.
I have only one question - why is someone who agrees with others and disagrees with you called a skunk? Would you treat him the same way if he supported your opinion?
Yehuda,
If you believe what you say, you are welcome to conduct research around the possibility that there is a giant scarab at the center of every 'black hole', which swallows the light rays.
Basically, leave. Why a scarab? There is also a whole chorus of singing bears, whose every growl causes a supernova somewhere else in space.
After all, it is possible that only on earth bears cannot sing. Why don't we know that there are no bears in space that -=yes=- sing, and that their singing is so terrible that it causes supernovas?
Does that sound ridiculous to you?
No more ridiculous than any other possibility. Once you are ready to open your mind to any possible theory without questioning it, you have to accept the fact that conducting established studies is going to be impossible, because you have to accept every possibility, even if it seems improbable according to all the laws we know.
I myself prefer to focus on research based on laws that have already proven themselves enough times. But, as you wish.
Good luck with your research. Let me know if you also find invisible dragons or Pinocchio in space.
Roy.
To Roy Cezana
Quote - "All this is true, but to simplify the matter we accept the universal correctness of those laws until proven otherwise." End quote
Two mistakes in this quote
A. What is universal correctness?
B. Which laws are you talking about?
I know that in my next statement I disagree with most scientists, but-
"There is no universal willingness!",
There is correctness only in the range of measurements you measured. There are no compromises on this issue. I do not accept any cosmological principle that would allow such a universal correctness.
B. And the laws?, what laws are you talking about, after all every physical phenomenon has an infinite number of formulas that are able to explain it and this from the uncertainty in the measurements that always exists!
Take for example only the experience of Professor Milgrom in his MOND theory, who saw fit to change Newton's second law with tiny accelerations to fit the motion of the galaxies. A tiny change like this is possible with countless others. All of these changes are correct within the range of measurements we measured, except that beyond the range each of the infinity will reach a different result, so who will we apply universality to? Why only Newton's laws and not Professor Milgrom's correction? After all, both options are correct within the range of measurements, but each of them will reach a different result in the ranges beyond the measurement range?
The approach that says universality should only be applied to the simple and agreed upon is simply very discriminatory towards all the non-simple options which are no less true.
And lest I be told that this was the intention of the miserly Scottish monk of Ockham generally known as "Ockham's Razor", the preference for the simple is only for reasons of convenience and not as a preference in the whole universe.
I already asked that we have a good weekend, so I won't ask again.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The weekend came and I turned to respond, well:
to the point
I didn't expect a point licker like you to have a sufficient level to understand my response.
and to the rest of the respondents
I know the role of prophecy given by the majority of the academy to scientists, but I object to this because in my opinion, the role of scientists is not prophecy or predictions. That should be left to the prophets.
The scientists must be mainly interested in an explanation of the universe that we know, to find the formulas for this and to find out the simplest of all the correct ones. A real difference to this is seeing the results of various experiments with an observant eye. Just for example, if we use Newton's or Einstein's formulas we will arrive at a singular point from where the big bang started. While most scientists sanctify this point and see it as a proven physical being, there are many others, including me, for whom this point actually proves the incorrectness of the formulas that led to its creation. My logic says that there cannot be a point that contains all the mass in the world.
My requirement for increasing the range is not simple. But, if this demand was accepted then someone would have climbed the tower of Pisa a thousand years before.
An example is given from the surface of gravity, it has actually been measured and proven only in the solar system, so in my humble opinion all that needs to be done is to check whether even at larger ranges of hundreds of astronomical units and even light years if it works according to Newton's formula, and not as it is done today who sanctify Newton's formula on the whole universe and get from here strange things of dark mass and repulsive power of the void, only they cry out in a preachy voice, and only they are supposed to be sufficient to determine the incorrectness of the above-mentioned flights at large ranges.
What I am saying is simply where the most efforts should be directed, to increase the range of formulas and theories or to use what is acceptable to us in the short term, and build card towers from it in the long term.
This is about my priorities here.
I don't expect singularities to drop to the end of my mind.
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Gillian,
I wandered your site, read a number of the links, but did not find the same conclusive proofs that you are talking about.
I am sure that it is indeed difficult to explain the full UFO theory on one foot. Despite this, you will surely agree with me that the study of UFOs is not similar to heart surgery, and that jades can also differentiate between truth, lies and imagination based on the evidence presented to them.
Therefore, I would be happy if you would bring some examples of cases that confirm your claims for the existence of extraterrestrial UFOs, in a way that cannot be refuted (as I have already seen you claim before).
Best regards,
Roy Cezana.
A. Ben-Ner:
I agree with all your words, but I don't understand why you directed them to me as well - after all, you are simply saying things that I also said
A. Ben-Ner,
Let me guess: a full moon rising in the desert at night? 🙂
Very nice, at least this kind of exposure will give a boost to the research of the field of wormholes. And if more and more scientists deal with this, maybe they will fix the "leftovers" of the theory of relativity - or refute or mathematically prove the possibility that the phenomenon can exist.
Regarding the aliens:
Honorable Hanan and Gillian and also Michael. After all, everyone knows that
Science too, and apparently also most of the scientists, believe that extraterrestrials exist. After all, the astrophysical scientists are engaged
In a highly branched study of discovering "earthly" planets and listening
for signals and radiations from the universe that will testify to the existence of life abroad
(meaning, of course, outside the earth). So, so far there are no conceptual differences of opinion between "science" and the extraterrestrial association. Where then is the difference between them? It is clear and understandable, science has not yet found the scientific evidence that confirms the existence of extraterrestrial life, while the members of the extraterrestrial association "believe" that various events are happening on our planet, the explanation The only explanation for their existence is the claim that extraterrestrials were here. Dear extraterrestrial enthusiasts. It seems that you do not at all exercise the critical view that is required in any scientific or other factual discussion, and you are busy convincing yourself that only extraterrestrials can be the only explanation for any phenomena.
The reason why science has not "bought" the extraterrestrial theory to this day is that, to this day, simple and reasonable mundane explanations have been found for all the so-called chattering phenomena. I remember that several years ago in my reserve service I discovered some physical-climatic phenomenon that at first I did not understand and it took me about an hour to find the explanation. So I decided to "stretch" some of my friends and showed them the phenomenon and presented it to them as an extraterrestrial phenomenon. To my utter surprise, many immediately believed the extraterrestrial explanation. After I showed them the simple physical explanation, some of them felt quite stupid. What is the same phenomenon?
Another time.
Gillian Gillian. If you are looking for sex conversations, this is not the place
Dear Gillian:
I have no idea based on what data you allow yourself to judge my education on the subject and I can only conclude that the expression about their people given by the prophecy applies to you.
I at least proved that Gabi is not a catch because in the absence of any data that allows us to know your gender, I really was not able to predict it.
To Michael,
I really do not expect any understanding from someone who is unable to differentiate even between a male and a female.
Beyond that, I don't argue in my field with people who lack minimal education in that field - likening it to a heart surgeon's argument with a jade.
age:
You are confusing a wormhole with a white hole.
In any case, no one has seen any of the "creatures" discussed here and what is discussed in the article is a way of "seeing" wormholes when "seeing", as in the case of black holes, is a way of inferring the existence of the wormhole from the fact that other things are seen.
My problem is with the event horizon.
There is no proof that a black worm requires a black hole without an event horizon.
No one has seen the other side of a wormhole which is only supposed to emit matter.
Maybe a wormhole means that only a relative part passes through it and not all the material? Which means that every black hole has the potential to be a wormhole.
The idea sounds great even though it was brought up by a Russian scientist!
This is a change of attitude I was talking about! Instead of continuing to look for how to build imaginary machines, this scientist offers a fantastic idea that already gives birth to a different understanding of wormholes (existing or not) and offers concrete suggestions on what to look for and also where there is the best chance to find it (if there is of course)!
And if it will be possible to see through wormholes stars millions of light years away as if they were right next to us? So in general it's great!
Nice point of view! By the way, if something is discovered, this scientist may win the Nobel Prize!
Sometimes even simple things need to be explained:
It is true that our observations can be represented using many formulas and we choose the simplest one and indeed all the examples I have given fall exactly in this area - we only see one side of the star and one of the possible formulas to describe its structure is the formula of a hemisphere instead of that of a sphere.
We do not know what life is and we assume that it is only possible under conditions similar to the conditions in which we live but this is only a formula based on our observations here. It could be that we are just limiting ourselves and that life is possible under much more extreme conditions.
We have simple formulas for the way light moves, and zigzag movement in situations we don't know is a formula we currently have no reason to accept.
This is also the case in relation to the equations of relativity and quantum theory. As long as they have not been proven to fail, we try to use them.
To be clear - the first to recognize the possibility of failure of the formulas under the extreme conditions discussed are the physicists themselves, but these formulas are currently all there is and the only way to improve them is to conduct experiments that will put them to the test.
This is the place to explain to anyone who doesn't know:
Formulas or theories are not used for measurement. They are used for forecasting and are better when the forecast they give is one that can be put to the test.
Therefore - instead of lamenting the scientists who do not increase the measurement range of the formulas (which, as mentioned, is a strange requirement) they should be congratulated for defining new predictions based on the formulas that might allow them to put them to the test further and improve them as needed.
Gilly the cutie:
you made me laugh
To Michael - regarding your response to Hanan Sabat:
We are not UFO enthusiasts - we have been in the field professionally for many years. As for evidence and powers, let me disagree with you.
Your hand is light on the trigger of the claim that "extraterrestrial enthusiasts started talking about wormholes from the moment they read about it in science fiction books.
I'm sure none of them know what it's about."
When in practice, you are the one who proves your claim in your words on a subject in which you have no knowledge at all. Therefore, my advice to you is: go out and study the subject (it will take you some long months just to start) and we will talk again in six months.
Notice on the bulletin board in the physics department:
"The lecture on time travel will take place yesterday. Entry through the wormhole and exit to the parallel universes. Registration will open ET"
Well said Michael.
Yehuda, stop writing and start studying.
For me, a formula is only correct if it gives correct results within the uncertainty of the measurements in which we test it, therefore, every physical phenomenon has an infinity of correct formulas, slightly different, that can explain it (within the uncertainty of the measurements). For reasons of convenience, we prefer to take the simplest formula out of the infinity of formulas above. But, beyond the range of our measurements, another one of the infinite formulas can be the simplest and the one we must choose. For example, in speed formulas, as long as we calculated small speeds, we preferred Newton's formulas over an infinite number of other formulas that differ only slightly from it, such as Einstein's formulas of relativity.
That is, even though Einstein's formulas also appeared among the infinite number of other formulas, we had no reasons to choose them and preferred Newton's formulas.
The choice of Einstein's formulas was made only when we increased the range of measurements to high speeds and then Newton's formulas were found to be incorrect or correct only soon and the leading formulas now are Einstein's formulas. But there are still an infinite number of other correct formulas, one of which could be correct in the ranges where Einstein's formulas have not yet been measured.
To take any formula out of the infinity of correctness in a certain range and say that it is also correct beyond this range just because it is the simplest in this range may only allow for fun but nothing more than that.
Of course it's also stupid to say that if we don't agree to this it's as if we agree that there is life inside the sun or that there is no second side to any planet.
The scientific effort must be in increasing the measurement range of the physical formulas!, and not drawing conclusions from them beyond the range in which they were measured.
Such an approach would have eliminated outright, drawing conclusions about black holes and wormholes and also about singular points.
No "cosmological principle" will fit here because it would not be correct (and fair) to say that the cosmological principle will refer to only one of the formulas just because it is the simplest.
And by the way, most likely a formula that is not the simplest will be correct beyond the existing range of measurements.
The definition of the simplicity of a formula is also a matter of choice and culture so that what is simple for person A in the USA, does not necessarily have to be simple for person B in China.
So whoever wants to have fun, let them have fun with black holes, wormholes, parallel universes and singular points. In advance I see these things as unproven and at most only as an unfounded hypothesis.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Michael Well done! Well spoken!
to compose:
Alien enthusiasts started talking about wormholes from the moment they read about it in science fiction books.
I'm sure none of them know what this is about.
Anyway, the reason scientists think aliens don't visit here isn't related to wormholes but because they've never been observed.
I guarantee you that as soon as an extraterrestrial is found or real evidence of his visit here, scientists will be the first to jump on the bandwagon.
I don't know if you have read the articles on SETI and the ensuing discussions on this site.
Those who read them see that the scientific establishment invests more efforts in finding evidence of extraterrestrial existence than any other organization, including all UFO research associations.
He also sees that this establishment follows a clear and logical path and does not accept the claims of those arguing from the religious direction that man is the crown of creation and there is no intelligent life apart from it, just as it does not accept the arguments of those arguing from the other direction as if they have already checked that there are extraterrestrials and there are wormholes and there is a conspiracy of all the governments of the world.
At the same time, science also deals with the discovery and understanding of phenomena such as wormholes, which are interesting whether aliens use them or not.
Scientific objectivity is only prevented by the desire to discover the truth and the fact that all religions make use of concepts invented by science without understanding the meaning behind them is not under its control.
It is interesting to note, but as someone who is involved in the study of the UFO phenomenon, more than once it has been claimed that their form of movement in space is not a flight from point to point, but a transition from point to point through what is known as "wormholes". By this argument, some of these vessels act as electrical capacitors. They are capable of flying, but the main part of their movement is not direct flight, they are a different utilization of space-time. For this reason and others, the claim made as if millions of light years are needed to reach If we take into account the possibility that intelligent and advanced life is even 50 light years away from us (not to mention that they are much closer), and utilize different methods of movement to move through space (known or unknown methods) - then it is time to start polishing the The idea that extraterrestrials cannot reach us, just from the thought that they are powered by rocket fuel and fly with the technologies we are familiar with.
Hanan Sabat
The Israeli association for the study of UFOs and extraterrestrial life
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
For all doubters:
Expressing doubt is the easiest thing.
We do not know that the stars that we observe from the direction of the Earth even have a second side.
We have never tested whether the laws of gravity work on their surface in the same way as they do on Earth.
We do not know if the light does not fly in zigzags near them and we have never seen that no one lives in the belly of the sun.
We, as living beings, have a tendency to recognize patterns and believe they exist even when we don't see them.
If scientific research has basic assumptions, then this is the most important one.
We make observations, try to deduce laws from them, make observations and experiments to confirm or disprove these laws, improve the laws if necessary and God forbid.
Doubt is always there - with black holes as with anything else - and it is so self-evident that there is no point in talking about it. We are not able to reach certain knowledge.
By the way, I'm a little surprised that some commenters think that scientists dealing with black holes and wormholes haven't heard of the connection between them and quantum theory.
Yehuda,
All this is true, but to simplify the matter we accept the universal correctness of those laws until proven otherwise. Shouldn't we stop exploring the universe and trying to interpret it, until we manage to send a man into a black hole with a measuring device in his hand?
We use here a theory that emerged from many experiments and apply it also to phenomena that we cannot measure well. Of course we can also use other theories to explain the same phenomena (for example, a large scarab that sits in the center of the 'black hole' and devours every ray of light that reaches it), but in this case the burden of proof is on the person who claims to have an explanation.
The existing theory of relativity has already been proven many times, so we allow ourselves to apply it to black holes as well. Any other explanation is at most suitable for science fiction stories, until evidence is received for it.
Good Day,
Roy.
We do not know at all if the existing laws known to us operate according to the same formulas also in the environment of black holes and wormholes.
Deducing such laws about the existence of the aforementioned holes is a far-fetched thing and is only suitable for a fictional few at most.
In other words, the laws we know are not defined in the environment of black holes, so nothing can be deduced from them regarding holes as such.
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Oh my God...
I knew it was real...I had a feeling
What about quantum loop theory?
Wormholes are related to describing the structure of the black hole. What is wrong to do using relativity alone - which successfully describes (if quantum effects are ignored) the structure of spacetime outside black holes, but creates quantum problems inside a black hole.
We need a more comprehensive Torah that describes the fabric of the real universe.