Wormholes and infinite energy

[Eye]

If we define our first and most inportant rule as energy can not be created out of nothing. Why then would a wormhole ever be possible, if you go from one place to another there will be a change in potential (gravitational) energy. Thanks in advance

 

[rod]

If we define our first and most inportant rule as energy can not be created out of nothing. Why then would a wormhole ever be possible, if you go from one place to another there will be a change in potential (gravitational) energy. Thanks in advance

Wormholes are interesting and your point too. I have this book, 'Black Holes & Time Warps, Einstein Outrageous Legacy' by Kip S. Thorne, 1994. Much discussion about wormholes and time travel. Some discussion too on quantum gravity that seems needed to model such ideas, e.g. black hole singularity in General Relativity vs. quantum gravity model. I prefer viewing the Galilean moons where Newton's gravity has good observational evidence in my telescope views

 

[David-J-Franks]

If we define our first and most inportant rule as energy can not be created out of nothing. Why then would a wormhole ever be possible, if you go from one place to another there will be a change in potential (gravitational) energy. Thanks in advance

Who said wormholes were possible anyway?

Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang: Franks, David J: 9781098852924: Amazon.com: Books

Buy Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

 

[rod]

Who said wormholes were possible anyway?

Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang: Franks, David J: 9781098852924: Amazon.com: Books

Buy Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

Everything I learned about How The Universe Works - I learned from watching Star Trek. Star Trek series said wormholes are used for space travel Enjoy David.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Everything I learned about How The Universe Works - I learned from watching Star Trek. Star Trek series said wormholes are used for space travel Enjoy David.

Well Star Trek was the first to have cell phones wasn't it?

 

[Truthseeker007]

Wormholes
Theoretical physics is a fascinating field, but it mathematically allows things that cannot exist in the real world. There is no reason to believe that anything such as a “wormhole” or “subspace” exists. “Warp drive”, and all the other FTL concepts, are nothing more than plot mechanisms used to complete a story line within a small portion of the characters’ lifetimes.
Wormholes are a hypothesis based on a theory which is based on an assumption of something we still do not know for sure exists. “Wormholes in space” probably do not exist. The proof that the wormhole/warpdrive/hyperdrive does not work is we are not now part of an intergalactic trade organization with regular visits from alien vendors. Naturally, this depends on the existence of at least one ET Alien race somewhere that was capable of developing this technology. Of course there are plenty of wormholes in apples, and in wood, and in the ground, but they probably won't take you where you want to go.
Theoretical Physicist John Wheeler did science a great disservice back in 1967 when he coined the phrase “Black Hole”. The highly misleading term leads many people to think it is, or can be, an actual “hole” leading somewhere. I prefer “hyperdensity”, a term I coined. Besides, “black hole” becomes obscene when translated into French or Russian.
It has been suggested that so-called “black-holes” would be the source of a “wormhole”. That, of course, is utter nonsense. Rather than being a gateway or “tunnel” to somewhere else, “black holes”, if they even exist, are the densest objects in the known universe, virtually the exact opposite of a hole. Currently there is no proof that “wormholes” (the space travel variety) of any size exist, micro, macro, or in between. There are a great many mathematical concepts that do not have a counterpart in the real universe, and so-called “wormholes” is one of them.
In order for the wormhole/space travel concept to work, the wormhole would have to be a “shortcut” to another area of space. Now, this is not a mathematical explanation, but it explains graphically why the “fold in space/wormhole hypothesis is unrealistic in the real universe. The inaccurate and totally misleading misrepresentation of space as a flat sheet or membrane makes it look easy. But, space is not flat like a sheet of paper, it is solid like a bowling ball. It is easy to fold a sheet of paper, but not quite so easy to fold a bowling ball. IMO, too many people have taken the woefully inadequate 2D flat sheet model and applied it literally to the 3D Universe.
A better and more reasonable representation of space and gravity would be that of a giant sponge the size of the Universe. The effect of gravity (i.e. a star) would be like reaching in to a point deep within the sponge and pinching some of the sponge material. You would end up with a region of dense sponge at the point of the “pinch”, immediately surrounded by a region of rarified density which gradually reverts to the original density as you move further from the “pinch”. The density of the sponge surrounding the “pinch” is analogously inversely proportional to the gravitational force of the star. Notice that no matter how hard you pinch an area, it never brings it any closer to any other area. It only changes the density of the sponge in that immediate vicinity, and that change in density varies inversely with distance from the pinched area. With this more accurate model, all those notions about folding space vanish.
Using this model, how would a “wormhole” work?

How do you come to the conclusion that the universe is like a bowling ball? I am just interested on how you come to that theory?

 

[Myron Kuzemko]

68% of Universe is a dark energy. It can easily transforms itself into a potential one when you move up the wormhole and back to dark energy (or even to a white one, who knows?) whey you move down.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Your selectively leaving out essential parts of my comment is dishonest, and constitutes the Logical Fallacy of the Strawman Argument. It was clearly a visual tool to graphically represent the difference between a flat, two dimensional Universe and a three dimensional Universe.

I am not leaving anything out for anybody can read your whole post for themselves. That is just the question I had after reading your post.lol! I am not one to play games I just had a simple question that is all.

Well then my question is so you are saying the Universe would be round like a planet? I mean it would make sense since everything else is round. I really am not sure whether the Universe is round of flat. But that makes me wonder if the Universe is round what would the Universe be floating in? It would make more sense for it to be round for the multiverse theory. Where this Universe is sitting in an even greater Universe. So if you were to leave this Universe you would come to the space that holds all the other Universes. What do you think?

 

[Truthseeker007]

You responded to what you quoted. Your deliberately leaving out the essential phrase was dishonest, misleading, and changed the tone of my comment. Your response WAS a clearly Strawman argument. As explained, the terminology was used to graphically represent the difference between a flat, two dimensional Universe and a three dimensional Universe.

Again you misrepresent what I said, creating yet another Strawman Argument Logical Fallacy. I said “solid”, not “round”. In over 12 years you are the only person unable to grasp the concept of 2D vs 3D.
And before you get on your high horse and argue about “solid”, remember that even a solid bowling ball is actually mostly empty space.
FYI, there are no round planets. AFAIK, there are no spherical planets. Planets are all oblate spheroids.

If that is what you want to believe Mental Avenger go for it. Not everybody is out to get you.lol! I must be good at a Strawman argument and not even know it.

I know the difference between 2D and 3D. I agree a solid bowling ball is mostly empty space. And sure they are oblate spheroids but I am not going to say that every time when I can just say round. Are you always this grumpy?

 

[Truthseeker007]

Just the facts, ma'am.

Your facts maybe a little off and I am certainly not a ma'am.lol!

 

[michaellyam]

But, space is not flat like a sheet of paper, it is solid like a bowling ball. It is easy to fold a sheet of paper, but not quite so easy to fold a bowling ball. IMO, too many people have taken the woefully inadequate 2D flat sheet model and applied it literally to the 3D Universe.

Great explanation and I agree with your statement that space is not a flat sheet which people used to explain the concept of wormhole.

 

[Logicalgal175]

Wormholes are interesting and your point too. I have this book, 'Black Holes & Time Warps, Einstein Outrageous Legacy' by Kip S. Thorne, 1994. Much discussion about wormholes and time travel. Some discussion too on quantum gravity that seems needed to model such ideas, e.g. black hole singularity in General Relativity vs. quantum gravity model. I prefer viewing the Galilean moons where Newton's gravity has good observational evidence in my telescope views

 

[Logicalgal175]

Hi, Rod. Since you appear to be a telescope owner, can you recommend one (preferably under $500) that an adult astronomy novice like myself could purchase and easily use? I know some of them incorporate a smart phone somehow. Do you recommend that type?

 

[Catastrophe]

TS
"what would the Universe be floating in?"

Come on, TS. We had reams of electronic posts on "into what is the Universe expanding". I am not going to repeat the flatlander analogy and defend its validity.

Cat

 

[Geomartian]

You do know what comes out of a wormhole?

A worm. The wormhole analogy is wrong in so many ways.

The wormhole is more of a science fiction plot device rather than something based in actual physics.

As far as producing infinite energy, the example of Kal El’s Krypton should serve as a warning.

 

[dfjchem721]

TS
"what would the Universe be floating in?"
Cat

>> NOTE: The above is Cat quoting previous post #8 from TS.


Everyone should know the universe is floating in a non-measurable and non-observable "dark aether" (at least according to Einstein, etc. - see below).

If we cannot see dark matter and dark energy, why should we be able to detect a dark aether? Sometimes science advances in the least expected ways.

quoting from Albert Einstein:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


And Sid Deutsch, a professor of electrical engineering and bioengineering, has the nerve to conjecture:

"that a "spherical, spinning" aether particle must exist in order "to carry electromagnetic waves" and derives its diameter and mass using the density of dark matter."


Finally from Robert B. Laughlin:

"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic aether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."


But that vacuum is not perfect since nature abhors vacuums, as we also should know. Thus the aether!

Case closed.

And there are a lot of wormholes in my back yard. At night I can catch a lot of jumbo night crawlers. Do you suppose they are inter-dimensional beings?


This is a test. It is only a test. If this was or was not the real thing, it might or might not have been posted.

 

[Catastrophe]

Everyone should know the universe is floating in a non-measurable and non-observable "dark aether" (at least according to Einstein, etc. - see below).

If we cannot see dark matter and dark energy, why should we be able to detect a dark aether? Sometimes science advances in the least expected ways.

quoting from Albert Einstein:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


And Sid Deutsch, a professor of electrical engineering and bioengineering, has the nerve to conjecture:

"that a "spherical, spinning" aether particle must exist in order "to carry electromagnetic waves" and derives its diameter and mass using the density of dark matter."


Finally from Robert B. Laughlin:

"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic aether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."


But that vacuum is not perfect since nature abhors vacuums, as we also should know. Thus the aether!

Case closed.

And there are a lot of wormholes in my back yard. At night I can catch a lot of jumbo night crawlers. Do you suppose they are inter-dimensional beings?


This is a test. It is only a test. If this was or was not the real thing, it might or might not have been posted.

Long live semantics! Like!

We are not talking about M 'n M type ether then?

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

M & Ms are great candies, but I suspect you are talking about those physicists. And there is an a that you missed, as in aether.

Their experiment gave a false negative, according to some of the most brilliant minds who ever lived. They might as well have been trying to measure dark energy.

Semantics is another story.

The "vacuum aether" may not be what it sounds like. We could not know everything about it since there are forms of matter and energy that are so pervasive but appear to elude us interminably. Throwing one more concept into the mix is not going to confuse anyone. Well, most anyway.

 

[Catastrophe]

TS, you posted:

"Well then my question is so you are saying the Universe would be round like a planet? I mean it would make sense since everything else is round. I really am not sure whether the Universe is round of flat. But that makes me wonder if the Universe is round what would the Universe be floating in?"

Now, I am not 'getting at' anybody here (especially you). It just happened that you posted this here and I am responding to the generality.

Some people are not happy with my flatlander analogy but everybody seems happy to post about round or flat universes and like comments. These are exactly analogies. My analogy, at least, is understandable and covers points like "edgeless" and addresses semantics and ( n + 1 ) dimension beings understanding limitations of ( n ) dimension beings, and much more.

Thank you. Sorry to interrupt, but I believe my flatlander contribution deserves more than lame dismissal (absolutely no particular person in mind.

 

[Catastrophe]

Everyone should know the universe is floating in a non-measurable and non-observable "dark aether" (at least according to Einstein, etc. - see below).

If we cannot see dark matter and dark energy, why should we be able to detect a dark aether? Sometimes science advances in the least expected ways.

quoting from Albert Einstein:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


And Sid Deutsch, a professor of electrical engineering and bioengineering, has the nerve to conjecture:

"that a "spherical, spinning" aether particle must exist in order "to carry electromagnetic waves" and derives its diameter and mass using the density of dark matter."


Finally from Robert B. Laughlin:

"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic aether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."


But that vacuum is not perfect since nature abhors vacuums, as we also should know. Thus the aether!

Case closed.

And there are a lot of wormholes in my back yard. At night I can catch a lot of jumbo night crawlers. Do you suppose they are inter-dimensional beings?


This is a test. It is only a test. If this was or was not the real thing, it might or might not have been posted.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. My apologies for repeating this, but I think the context of quoting my quoting someone else's post needs clarification. This is the full quote: Post #14 Cat

<Quote
TS
"what would the Universe be floating in?"

Come on, TS. We had reams of electronic posts on "into what is the Universe expanding". I am not going to repeat the flatlander analogy and defend its validity.
Quote>

My colour artwork.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Now, the subject of this thread, Wormholes and infinite energy is very wide in concept and bidirected in semantic content, so I will try to keep within these constraints if, indeed, infinite energy is considered to have, in any way, any constraint.

Let me say, immediately, that I am not a great fan of the wormhole concept – invented, I would suggest, as a cheapskate alternative to FLT or extremely long drawn out Startrek episodes. That said, it concept fits very neatly into ’my’ flatlander picture. Imagine a conduit joining two expanding spheres, the inhabitants being restricted to that surface and unable to comprehend anything outside that surface. However, that conduit (wormhole) if you will, would be ‘off limits’ to the n-dimensional being, but fully accessible to the (n+1)-dimensional being. This is getting, by the minute, to look like J W Dunne’s “Serial Universe”. This is, of course, all hypothetical nonsense which I will leave to experts to pull to shreds.

So much for wormholes, and their inhabitants, which doubtless would provide fodder for less picky (n+1)-dimensional beings.

With regard to infinite energy, many of you will be aware of my loathing for the word infinite. It is a concept which takes over when imagination boots out rationality beyond recovery. Its connection with worm holes, I find difficult to fathom. Perhaps to counter the spaghetti effect as our brave advocates attempt to run the gauntlet of the event horizon? As one brave adventurer might call “Once more into the singularity dear friends, be mindful of the dangers before you fall upon t’other.”

Apologies to WS and ‘A’ level English Literature teacher.

Finally, reminiscing about our beloved Language, let me clear up one point, as I am always minded to correct my spelling when any opportunity arises.. It seems,at least according to Google:

“Ether. ... Ether, also spelled aether, also called luminiferous ether, in physics, a theoretical universal substance believed during the 19th century to act as the medium for transmission of electromagnetic waves (e.g., light and X-rays), much as sound waves are transmitted by elast;” ic media such as air.29 May 2020

There may, of course, be other meanings where the preceding “a” is necessary, and I apologise if I have been unaware of any such attribution. Corrections of any errors are always welcomed, as gain in knowledge always outweighs insignificant personal embarrassment.

Best wishes to you all

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

Let me say, immediately, that I am not a great fan of the wormhole concept – invented, I would suggest, as a cheapskate alternative to FLT or extremely long drawn out Startrek episodes.

There certainly are many who relegate wormholes to the realm of sci-fi, like tachyons and warp drive.

Oh pleeeeeze....

With regard to infinite energy, many of you will be aware of my loathing for the word infinite. It is a concept which takes over when imagination boots out rationality beyond recovery.

It seems that all the blame for infinity rests with the mathematicians. They are the ones who brought this plague of a concept to our attention. We certainly have infinity in numbers, forwards, backwards and inversely, infinitely etc. But for physical objects? We will need some hard evidence for that.

 

[Catastrophe]

For anyone who might want to pursue the flatlander analogy in relation to wormholes (or preferably some more productive subject) the concept starts around post #109 in Edgeless Universe..