6 ms·

Worse, wormholes contradict general relativity's own postulate, the equivalence principle, as shown by rock-solid logic here: http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/0

Worse, wormholes contradict general relativity's own postulate, the equivalence principle, as shown by rock-solid logic here: http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/no-black-holes/ http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/no-black-holes/ Wormholes provide an endless stream of grant money, careers and tenure. That's why we still read about them. Einstein spent a decade trying to refute his own theory about them and black holes. (It's a throwaway account so I won't see the unscientific replies.)

Osmium 14y ago
Because of course a blog titled "Solutions to 5 Major Problems in Physics" wouldn't be talking out of its own ass. Among other things claimed to be solved on there are problems related to dark energy and quantum gravity. Perhaps the sarcastic tone is too much, but "peer review" (flawed though it may be) exists for a reason. If there's a paper, you should link that instead, and if there isn't a paper then maybe that tells you something. There's too much crap on the Internet and it makes it far too easy for a layman to be led astray by almost-but-not-quite logic. I don't know if your link is an example of that or not, but I've seen far too many blogs that claim to have solved some big mystery that's alluded great minds for the last several decades, but yet somehow their work remains unpublished.
- tuppol 14y ago
  So you didn't even read the content of his link, but somehow you felt entitled to dismiss it on the basis that... on what basis, exactly? That no information that wasn't pre-approved by a certified, "well-respected" expert is worth considering? Science doesn't work like that. Academia does.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    Have you read the content of his link? I have; its reasoning is invalid.
    - genwin 14y ago
      Should we just take your word for that?
      - pdonis 14y ago
        No, you should read the link, and/or you should ask me what I'm basing my judgment on. [Edit: I see you did just that elsewhere in the thread, I'll respond there.]
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - Osmium 14y ago
    It's an admirable attitude to have but sadly only in theory. In practice there's sadly far too much crackpottery on the Internet. That's absolutely fine if the only people reading it are experts who can judge it for themselves, but often that isn't the case. If you are an expert then I agree; don't dismiss something out of hand because it isn't peer reviewed! but if you're one of those people, you don't need to be told that. To illustrate my point, consider the hoards of climate change deniers, or young earthers out there. To someone who doesn't study the climate or geology, their arguments might sound valid but are actually dangerously misleading. Physics crackpottery is a slightly more intellectual version of that, in that the subject matter isn't accessible to most, but it's no less dangerous. And there's so much of it. So, so much. Some physics bloggers have all but given up the will having battled these people for so long. They're like the conspiracy theorists of the science world. So I feel like it's not unreasonable for a layman to dismiss things out of hand until it's been properly peer reviewed. We should all be wary of argument to authority, but perhaps less so to argument to experience and mutual respect.
- genwin 14y ago
  Peer review may exist for a reason but there's no evidence it helps to advance science. There is evidence however that peer review has blocked valid works. It may be throwing the babies out with the bath water.
pdonis 14y ago
Your "rock-solid logic" makes at least one incorrect assumption about local inertial frames in curved spacetime.
- genwin 14y ago
  Care to elaborate? I saw no such issue.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    In the diagram of Frame X, which purports to be an inertial frame "centered" on the horizon, the horizon is shown as a vertical line. If this diagram is supposed to be a spacetime diagram, this is incorrect; the horizon is an outgoing lightlike surface, so it should appear in a spacetime diagram of Frame X as a 45-degree line going up and to the right, just like a light ray. However, if the diagram is just supposed to be a diagram of "space" at the horizon (not spacetime), then it is not correct because the direction to the left of the diagram, towards the singularity, is not a spacelike direction; that direction is supposed to be the inward radial direction, but that direction is a timelike direction, not a spacelike direction. In short, the diagram of Frame X can't be correct, so no valid logical argument can be based on it. [Edit: The argument given in words has the same problems, but it's easier to illustrate them in the diagram.]
    - genwin 14y ago
      As I interpreted it, it's a diagram of a lab falling through a horizon, as viewed by someone at rest with respect to the lab. The horizon would be a plane traversing the lab; thus the horizon is drawn correctly. The singularity would be in one direction perpendicular to the horizon, whereas the escaping particle would be heading toward infinity in the opposite direction; thus those are drawn correctly. > that direction is supposed to be the inward radial direction, but that direction is a timelike direction, not a spacelike direction. It's an inward radial direction according to the diagram. The "but" part of your sentence doesn't offer evidence to invalidate that or otherwise show a problem. There's a coffee mug in front of me now. Regardless whether it's a spacelike or timelike direction, the mug is in that direction. Likewise to someone in that frame X the singularity is definitely in a particular direction. I'm not seeing a problem with the diagram.

Osmium 14y ago

Because of course a blog titled "Solutions to 5 Major Problems in Physics" wouldn't be talking out of its own ass. Among other things claimed to be solved on there are problems related to dark energy and quantum gravity. Perhaps the sarcastic tone is too much, but "peer review" (flawed though it may be) exists for a reason. If there's a paper, you should link that instead, and if there isn't a paper then maybe that tells you something. There's too much crap on the Internet and it makes it far too easy for a layman to be led astray by almost-but-not-quite logic. I don't know if your link is an example of that or not, but I've seen far too many blogs that claim to have solved some big mystery that's alluded great minds for the last several decades, but yet somehow their work remains unpublished.

tuppol 14y ago
So you didn't even read the content of his link, but somehow you felt entitled to dismiss it on the basis that... on what basis, exactly? That no information that wasn't pre-approved by a certified, "well-respected" expert is worth considering? Science doesn't work like that. Academia does.
- pdonis 14y ago
  Have you read the content of his link? I have; its reasoning is invalid.
  - genwin 14y ago
    Should we just take your word for that?
    - pdonis 14y ago
      No, you should read the link, and/or you should ask me what I'm basing my judgment on. [Edit: I see you did just that elsewhere in the thread, I'll respond there.]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- Osmium 14y ago
  It's an admirable attitude to have but sadly only in theory. In practice there's sadly far too much crackpottery on the Internet. That's absolutely fine if the only people reading it are experts who can judge it for themselves, but often that isn't the case. If you are an expert then I agree; don't dismiss something out of hand because it isn't peer reviewed! but if you're one of those people, you don't need to be told that. To illustrate my point, consider the hoards of climate change deniers, or young earthers out there. To someone who doesn't study the climate or geology, their arguments might sound valid but are actually dangerously misleading. Physics crackpottery is a slightly more intellectual version of that, in that the subject matter isn't accessible to most, but it's no less dangerous. And there's so much of it. So, so much. Some physics bloggers have all but given up the will having battled these people for so long. They're like the conspiracy theorists of the science world. So I feel like it's not unreasonable for a layman to dismiss things out of hand until it's been properly peer reviewed. We should all be wary of argument to authority, but perhaps less so to argument to experience and mutual respect.
genwin 14y ago
Peer review may exist for a reason but there's no evidence it helps to advance science. There is evidence however that peer review has blocked valid works. It may be throwing the babies out with the bath water.

pdonis 14y ago

Your "rock-solid logic" makes at least one incorrect assumption about local inertial frames in curved spacetime.

genwin 14y ago
Care to elaborate? I saw no such issue.
- pdonis 14y ago
  In the diagram of Frame X, which purports to be an inertial frame "centered" on the horizon, the horizon is shown as a vertical line. If this diagram is supposed to be a spacetime diagram, this is incorrect; the horizon is an outgoing lightlike surface, so it should appear in a spacetime diagram of Frame X as a 45-degree line going up and to the right, just like a light ray. However, if the diagram is just supposed to be a diagram of "space" at the horizon (not spacetime), then it is not correct because the direction to the left of the diagram, towards the singularity, is not a spacelike direction; that direction is supposed to be the inward radial direction, but that direction is a timelike direction, not a spacelike direction. In short, the diagram of Frame X can't be correct, so no valid logical argument can be based on it. [Edit: The argument given in words has the same problems, but it's easier to illustrate them in the diagram.]
  - genwin 14y ago
    As I interpreted it, it's a diagram of a lab falling through a horizon, as viewed by someone at rest with respect to the lab. The horizon would be a plane traversing the lab; thus the horizon is drawn correctly. The singularity would be in one direction perpendicular to the horizon, whereas the escaping particle would be heading toward infinity in the opposite direction; thus those are drawn correctly. > that direction is supposed to be the inward radial direction, but that direction is a timelike direction, not a spacelike direction. It's an inward radial direction according to the diagram. The "but" part of your sentence doesn't offer evidence to invalidate that or otherwise show a problem. There's a coffee mug in front of me now. Regardless whether it's a spacelike or timelike direction, the mug is in that direction. Likewise to someone in that frame X the singularity is definitely in a particular direction. I'm not seeing a problem with the diagram.