Slashdot Mirror
Could We Find a Door To A Parallel Universe?
p1234 writes "Though no direct evidence for wormholes has been observed, this could be because they are disguised as black holes. Now Alexander Shatskiy of the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, Russia, is suggesting a possible way to tell the two kinds of object apart. His idea assumes the existence of a bizarre substance called "phantom matter", which has been proposed to explain how wormholes might stay open. Phantom matter has negative energy and negative mass, so it creates a repulsive effect that prevents the wormhole closing. 'US expert Dr Lawrence Krauss, from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, points out that the idea rests on untested assumptions. He told New Scientist magazine: "It is an interesting attempt to actually think of what a real signature for a wormhole would be, but it is more hypothetical than observational. Without any idea of what phantom matter is and its possible interactions with light, it is not clear one can provide a general argument."'"
It's the natural result of allowing mathematicians to take over physics. They could care less about physicality.
We shouldn't be surprised. Where are the critics and the skeptics? Nobody seems to care about the stories being right. The public's love affair with gadgets is obscuring their contemplation of the complex philosophical questions associated with astrophysical interpretations. Consensus has become an ideal within science, and the skeptics are marginalized as having no value. The public evaluates its science largely on the basis of popularity. It's a very dangerous long-term situation for a country that expects innovation to continue as it has for many decades now.
We need an attitude adjustment. We (as in popular science) know *nothing* about what's going on in space. We are reminded of it nearly every single day. There are far too many surprises and enigmatic observations. And dark matter and dark energy are being used as fudge factors for things like gravitational lensing. This is a sinking ship, and the smart ones will start looking elsewhere right now.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
You guys are unable to locate 95% of the universe's supposed matter. The conventional theories can't adequately explain why planets appear to frequently have hotspots at their poles. There remains no explanation within the conventional theories for why the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets. There are all sorts of enigmatic craters and rilles on the rocky planets, including one just found on Mercury last week that is quite similar to the Tycho crater on the Moon (another crater which remains a mystery to this day). I've yet to see any credible attempt to explain why the Deep Impact impactor generated two flashes at the time of impact nor the fact that lightning is frequently photographed leading into space these days. Shouldn't that affect our certainty that storms are closed electrical systems? All conventional attempts to understand the enigmatic Stardust mission data have resulted in just more assertions that the results are not representative of all comets. There's been no attempt to understand how it might be possible for experimental results like these to occur:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101089.pdf
If we can see elements popping into existence within simple ball lightning laboratory experiments, then one has to wonder about the implications for stars.
What's ultimately really silly about how science operates these days is that there is far too much eagerness to cast aside alternative competing theories that challenge the conventional ones. This problem is called pseudo-skepticism ("fake skepticism") -- the process of having a bias within your skepticism. Skepticism is supposed to be a philosophy of science concept, an information filter, that is applied to all information we are exposed to, equally. It is a way of being that allows people to evaluate the certainty associated with information. When it is applied with a bias, where conventional wisdom is favored, it leads to a problem: the "mainstream" ends up simply unaware of alternative sets of interpretations for their data, and they frequently just end up ignoring these alternative theories. So, this is why people like yourself ultimately look quite silly: because you don't even have enough information to competently argue that the new data we see on a daily basis are discriminatingly supportive of the conventional theories against the Electric Universe. You can't possibly know that until you understand the "big picture" of what is being stated about the Electric Universe. For every piece of evidence you point out that you say demonstrates your own set of theories, you actually aren't even capable of identifying at the current moment whether or not the data fits into this other challenging set of theories too. And this is ultimately why I'm in some manners a bit more capable of identifying the situation than yourself. You've allowed your education to blind you; you thought that you were going to school to learn *what* to believe rather than how to think.
Nereid, we will eventually make our own laboratories, and we will make the technologies based upon EU that you argue so much against. The money will eventually come in.
And by the way, point me to your comet document when it's ready. I'm very eager to see what you come up with!
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
Nereid, if your allegations about the Electric Universe were even remotely true, then there's no way in hell that people like Anthony Peratt would associate themselves with these ideas. Your arguments constitute a complete non sequiter when placed into that context. In fact, every time that you pretend that the issues are as simple as this juvenile short list of hypotheses, a person could be forgiven for interpreting your statements as blatant obfuscations and malicious in intent. There is an actual debate here to be had, and the real action is far above the playing field that you've laid out for yourself. If you want to impress somebody, then why don't you find a problem within the rejoinder to Tim Thompson ...
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm
This is the level of detail that I would expect to see from you before I would ever consider forwarding something on to anybody. Short of a detailed refutation of these sorts of arguments (and demanding that we be your library assistant will not cut it), you're beneath our radars.
ps -- I'm amazed that you insist on pointing out the problems with EU within comments attached to a story titled, "Could We Find a Door to a Parallel Universe?" Who's the pseudoscience, here? The topic of the article was about some astrophysicist who wastes a bunch of time trying to invent imaginary matters that would allow him to manipulate wormholes! The particular thread that I commented on was started by a person who was ridiculing astrophysics for how absurd it has become. Are you just completely oblivious to what's happening around you?
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.