Originally by: Akita T

---

Seriously ?

...wow... I'm such a forum ho' !

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture.
The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, i'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: AC Resonance

---

"Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand"

---

Originally by: iudex

---

Originally by: AC Resonance

---

"Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand"

---

So i'm arrogant/ignorant because i don't believe in a wormholes pseudo-science. I'm sorry for questioning your worldview, but Deep Space Nine and Star Trek are not science (sorry to burst your bubble). Wormholes are quite common in SciFi (like telekinetic powers in the mystery genre) there is no proof or circumstational evidence of the existance of it.

---

Originally by: iudex

---

Originally by: AC Resonance

---

"Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand"

---

So i'm arrogant/ignorant because i don't believe in a wormholes pseudo-science. I'm sorry for questioning your worldview, but Deep Space Nine and Star Trek are not science (sorry to burst your bubble). Wormholes are quite common in SciFi (like telekinetic powers in the mystery genre) there is no proof or circumstational evidence of the existance of it.

---

Originally by: iudex

---

Originally by: AC Resonance

---

"Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand"

---

So i'm arrogant/ignorant because i don't believe in a wormholes pseudo-science. I'm sorry for questioning your worldview, but Deep Space Nine and Star Trek are not science (sorry to burst your bubble). Wormholes are quite common in SciFi (like telekinetic powers in the mystery genre) there is no proof or circumstational evidence of the existance of it.

---

Originally by: Element 22

---

Not quite true. There ARE wormholes in real life. They're just really really tiny and unstable. These wormholes appear on the quantum level and it's not just theory as there have been more the a few experiments that point very strongly towards them exisiting.

---

Originally by: Element 22

---

Not quite true. There ARE wormholes in real life. They're just really really tiny and unstable. These wormholes appear on the quantum level and it's not just theory as there have been more the a few experiments that point very strongly towards them exisiting.

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture.
The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, i'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

While we're at it, time to repost this gem on the effects of relativity.

---

Originally by: Gneeznow

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

While we're at it, time to repost this gem on the effects of relativity.

---

I have no idea what I just watched

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

While we're at it, time to repost this gem on the effects of relativity.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

It depends on what kind of wormhole.
There are multiple equations for different kinds.

The most common being Einstein-Rosen bridges
then theres Schwarzschild wormholes

Both are based around theory's of black holes, holes in space-time that let you see the same space at a different point in time, or a different parallel reality or universe

There's also transverseable wormholes called Morris-Thorne wormholes
wormholes that can be traveled through and youd end up at any random place in the universe and at any point in time, while still being able to look back through the wormhole to see the place and point in time you just came from on the other side.

Another theory is space-time being folded upon itself allowing instantaneous travel between two points of space and time.


The wormholes now in EVE Online would be Morris-Thorne wormholes as that they are transversable, but unlike the theory's we have, would be unlikely because an event so cataclysmic to create an unstable wormhole in space (such as a black hole) would also affect time (causing you to time travel aswell as move instantaneously through two points of space)


did i just confuse any of you? lol
Ive always loved the idea of black holes and wormholes
and i asked a lot of questions in science classes when i was young.

---

Originally by: Dmian

---

Who cares what you think?
There might also be worms in your butthole, and it still wouldn't matter.
This is a forum for a game. If you want to discuss the feasability of wormholes you'd better go to an astrophisics forum. Or don't. Who cares.

OP: nice work!

---

Originally by: Ruze

---

The vast majority of science is, in itself, hypothetical. Everything is taken on faith. No better than their religious counterparts, it's logic is based on assumptions, it's assumptions are based on limited information. Science at least grows and adapts, however, when new information is learned which debunks prior assumptions.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

When doing research for Apocrypha, a lot of time was spent trying to figure out what wormholes should look like. The classic image of a wormhole as some sort of vortex on a 2-d plane sitting in space is actually incorrect, according to scientists at Tnbingen University, Germany. The four dimensional topolgy of space being bent means that you can enter the wormhole from any direction and looking through it you would see the other side. From any direction. So that's why we didn't go for the classic whirlpool funnel on a 2d plane, as wormholes are usually represented in classic Sci-Fi.

There are videos that explain it quite well on this page.

---

Originally by: Merouk Baas

---

Yeah, I'd agree that the typical "funnel in space" imagery is wrong. The way I imagine wormholes in RL is "two or more event horizons leading to the same black hole / singularity, from two different points in space (and/or in time)."

If it were a star at the center of the tunnel instead of a singularity, you'd basically have two different regions in space where the exact same star appears to be present.
.

---

Originally by: Bestofworst

---

Originally by: Merouk Baas

---

Yeah, I'd agree that the typical "funnel in space" imagery is wrong. The way I imagine wormholes in RL is "two or more event horizons leading to the same black hole / singularity, from two different points in space (and/or in time)."

If it were a star at the center of the tunnel instead of a singularity, you'd basically have two different regions in space where the exact same star appears to be present.
.

---

I just had the idea of a Wormhole that did exist and was stable for a long period and one one side had a sun which gave light, and later, life to an otherwise dead planet, and during teh dawn of that civilizations space age the wormhole collapsed and all hell broke loose....


.. ya right.. sucky fan fiction is sucky

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 08/03/2009 22:15:59

Originally by: Bestofworst

---

Originally by: Merouk Baas

---

Yeah, I'd agree that the typical "funnel in space" imagery is wrong. The way I imagine wormholes in RL is "two or more event horizons leading to the same black hole / singularity, from two different points in space (and/or in time)."

If it were a star at the center of the tunnel instead of a singularity, you'd basically have two different regions in space where the exact same star appears to be present.
.

---

I just had the idea of a Wormhole that did exist and was stable for a long period and one one side had a sun which gave light, and later, life to an otherwise dead planet, and during teh dawn of that civilizations space age the wormhole collapsed and all hell broke loose....


.. ya right.. sucky fan fiction is sucky

---

Light cant travel through a wormhole, you only get the illusion of light, like as in a picture of the sun.

its like staring at a picture of whats on the other side, nomatter what angle you look at it, itll always be from the same angle. once you go in your instantly on the other side and looking at a picture of where you came from.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 08/03/2009 22:15:59

Originally by: Bestofworst

---

Originally by: Merouk Baas

---

Yeah, I'd agree that the typical "funnel in space" imagery is wrong. The way I imagine wormholes in RL is "two or more event horizons leading to the same black hole / singularity, from two different points in space (and/or in time)."

If it were a star at the center of the tunnel instead of a singularity, you'd basically have two different regions in space where the exact same star appears to be present.
.

---

I just had the idea of a Wormhole that did exist and was stable for a long period and one one side had a sun which gave light, and later, life to an otherwise dead planet, and during teh dawn of that civilizations space age the wormhole collapsed and all hell broke loose....


.. ya right.. sucky fan fiction is sucky

---

Light cant travel through a wormhole, you only get the illusion of light, like as in a picture of the sun.

its like staring at a picture of whats on the other side, nomatter what angle you look at it, itll always be from the same angle. once you go in your instantly on the other side and looking at a picture of where you came from.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

So photons can't pass through a wormhole but a ship could?

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 08/03/2009 22:41:04

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

So photons can't pass through a wormhole but a ship could?

---

actually, correct.


You need force to push through the event horizon.

Light is energy, not matter, it cannot create force to push through.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 08/03/2009 22:41:04

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

So photons can't pass through a wormhole but a ship could?

---

actually, correct.


You need force to push through the event horizon.

Light is energy, not matter, it cannot create force to push through.

---

Quote:

---

EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

The wormholes now in EVE Online would be Morris-Thorne wormholes as that they are transversable, but unlike the theory's we have, would be unlikely because an event so cataclysmic to create an unstable wormhole in space (such as a black hole) would also affect time (causing you to time travel aswell as move instantaneously through two points of space)

---

Originally by: Karentaki

---

Edited by: Karentaki on 08/03/2009 22:55:51
I commend CCP on their efforts to produce the most believable looking wormholes I have ever seen in any science fiction setting. I have often contemplated and researched theories on how wormholes could exist and what they might look like, and the eve wormholes are almost exactly like I pictured them, possibly minus the mass limit.

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 08/03/2009 22:41:04

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

So photons can't pass through a wormhole but a ship could?

---

actually, correct.


You need force to push through the event horizon.

Light is energy, not matter, it cannot create force to push through.

---

Wrong. First, light is energy, and so is force. Solar sails and nano-scale molecular manipulators both work on the principal of using only light to move objects (though solar sails also use particles). Secondly, light CAN pass through a wormhole, otherwise you couldn't get an image at all of what is on the other side. Thanks to wave/particle duality light behaves just like any other high-energy particle when reaching the wormhole, and under all accepted models of working wormholes light could pass through. The only special thing about wormholes that differentiates them from normal space is that they are believed to require exotic matter to keep them open.

EDIT: Just to clarify, exotic matter has negative mass, and is NOT antimatter.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Antimatter is a short term for ANTI GRAVITY MATTER
look it up here Exotic Matter

and light cant create a pushing force.
The image you see inside the event horizon of a wormhole is whats on the other side, but nothing on the other side is actually transferring through.

ONLY MATTER can move through a transversable wormhole

---

Originally by: iudex

---

Originally by: AC Resonance

---

"Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand"

---

So i'm arrogant/ignorant because i don't believe in a wormholes pseudo-science. I'm sorry for questioning your worldview, but Deep Space Nine and Star Trek are not science (sorry to burst your bubble). Wormholes are quite common in SciFi (like telekinetic powers in the mystery genre) there is no proof or circumstational evidence of the existance of it.

---

Originally by: WAuter

---

When Jules Verne wrote a story about shooting a capsule with a big cannon to the moon he sure was a crazy 19th century science fiction writer.

It doesn't mean if it is science fiction now, it won't be possible at all.

If we even have theories supporting the idea...why shouldn't it be possible?

Teleportation seems science fiction too, but quantum-physics have shown it is possible to move particals from one location to another, much like how we imagine teleportation would work.

Clones, wireless communicators, flatscreens, the internet, venture into space and explore our solarsystem...it was science fiction many years ago. Now it's reality..

Too bad i won't be around for another 200 years too see it all.

Originally by: iudex

---

Originally by: AC Resonance

---

"Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand"

---

So i'm arrogant/ignorant because i don't believe in a wormholes pseudo-science. I'm sorry for questioning your worldview, but Deep Space Nine and Star Trek are not science (sorry to burst your bubble). Wormholes are quite common in SciFi (like telekinetic powers in the mystery genre) there is no proof or circumstational evidence of the existance of it.

---

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture.
The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, i'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: James Holcomb

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

The wormholes now in EVE Online would be Morris-Thorne wormholes as that they are transversable, but unlike the theory's we have, would be unlikely because an event so cataclysmic to create an unstable wormhole in space (such as a black hole) would also affect time (causing you to time travel aswell as move instantaneously through two points of space)

---

Provided time is real quantity and not a unit that we created. Gravity is real, you can feel it and measure it. Time on the other hand we created and created the tools to measure it as we saw fit.

---

Originally by: Bethulsunamen

---

Originally by: James Holcomb

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

The wormholes now in EVE Online would be Morris-Thorne wormholes as that they are transversable, but unlike the theory's we have, would be unlikely because an event so cataclysmic to create an unstable wormhole in space (such as a black hole) would also affect time (causing you to time travel aswell as move instantaneously through two points of space)

---

Provided time is real quantity and not a unit that we created. Gravity is real, you can feel it and measure it. Time on the other hand we created and created the tools to measure it as we saw fit.

---

Time is real, it takes a certain ammount of time for a radiactive isotope to break down, or for an exotic particle to collapse. And that time is extended if around a large gravity field and/or travelling at higher speeds.
Sure, our own measurements of seconds and minutes, are just our own verbal constructs. But time itself remains, regardless of the unit you use to describe it.

Same with distance, a meter is always a meter, regardless if there is noone to call it a meter, since the distance is still there =P

---

Originally by: iudex

---

...The artist (...) can make it look like whatever he likes

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 08/03/2009 22:15:59

Originally by: Bestofworst

---

Originally by: Merouk Baas

---

Yeah, I'd agree that the typical "funnel in space" imagery is wrong. The way I imagine wormholes in RL is "two or more event horizons leading to the same black hole / singularity, from two different points in space (and/or in time)."

If it were a star at the center of the tunnel instead of a singularity, you'd basically have two different regions in space where the exact same star appears to be present.
.

---

I just had the idea of a Wormhole that did exist and was stable for a long period and one one side had a sun which gave light, and later, life to an otherwise dead planet, and during teh dawn of that civilizations space age the wormhole collapsed and all hell broke loose....


.. ya right.. sucky fan fiction is sucky

---

Light cant travel through a wormhole, you only get the illusion of light, like as in a picture of the sun.

its like staring at a picture of whats on the other side, nomatter what angle you look at it, itll always be from the same angle. once you go in your instantly on the other side and looking at a picture of where you came from.

---

Originally by: Renarla

---

But... isn't everything you see light?

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

When doing research for Apocrypha, a lot of time was spent trying to figure out what wormholes should look like. The classic image of a wormhole as some sort of vortex on a 2-d plane sitting in space is actually incorrect, according to scientists at Tnbingen University, Germany. The four dimensional topolgy of space being bent means that you can enter the wormhole from any direction and looking through it you would see the other side. From any direction. So that's why we didn't go for the classic whirlpool funnel on a 2d plane, as wormholes are usually represented in classic Sci-Fi.

There are videos that explain it quite well on this page.

---

Originally by: Bethulsunamen

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture.
The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, I'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU.

---

Everything that CAN exist, proven via mathematical calculations, DOES exist.
Yes, it really is that simple.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

There are videos that explain it quite well on this page.

---

Originally by: Admiral IceBlock

---

Are you trying to say that players can see if the wormhole is camped on the other side?!

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture.
The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, i'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: iudex

---

Before you start mathematical calculations on unknown things you need a fixed and secure knowledge of matter space and time - fixed things that you base your calculations on.
There is no secure knowledge of our universe, the models are still changing whenever something new is discovered (e.g. in the LHC, when it will be put into operation again).
If you do mathematical calculation based on assumptions/model, you won't create reality but you get a calculated result based on the accuracy of that assumption/model.
[...]

Many of the things people said above are true for black holes (micro black holes in particle accelerators etc.). But black holes are different, there are indications of their existence, while a wormhole is not more scientific than time-travel or telekinesis ... actually there is more scientific evidence of the existence of telekinesis than evidence for wormholes.

---

Originally by: Levizzenvivious

---

Well, you've got the "proof or STFU"-part right. Unfortunately for you, and your argument, modern science has acquired a good amount of evidence when it comes to The Big Bang theory. For example, no other current theory can offer a better explanation for the universe's background radiation, or the red-shift of distant galaxies (while Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory (which claims that new matter is constantly being created in the center of the universe) is capable of explaining the red-shift, it fails when it comes to explaining the background radiation).

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The Big Bang is nothing than a theory, an attempt to explain the unexplainable, it's only a guess. And it contradicts the known natural laws of science: according to that theory the whole universe (matter, energy, space, time) came suddenly into existence out of nothing.
How can something be created when there was nothing before - or how can we know that there was nothing before, or what was before the Big Bang, before time ?

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The Big Bang is nothing than a theory, an attempt to explain the unexplainable, it's only a guess.

---

Quote:

---

And it contradicts the known natural laws of science: according to that theory the whole universe (matter, energy, space, time) came suddenly into existence out of nothing.

---

Originally by: The Snowman

---

Since wormholes are purely theoretical, not having even a scrap of evidence supporting their existence, what they look like is just blind speculation. I could say they could look like my arse and still be as scientifically correct as your German scientists.

A for effort though.

---

Originally by: Levizzenvivious

---

For example, no other current theory can offer a better explanation for the universe's background radiation

---

Originally by: midge Mo'yb

---

i still think DS9 style wormholes would look sweet :P

---

Originally by: The Snowman

---

Since wormholes are purely theoretical, not having even a scrap of evidence supporting their existence, what they look like is just blind speculation. I could say they could look like my arse and still be as scientifically correct as your German scientists.

A for effort though.

---

Originally by: Graveyard Tan

---

I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

this is most likely what a real wormhole would look like.

---

Originally by: Dmian

---

Originally by: midge Mo'yb

---

i still think DS9 style wormholes would look sweet :P

---

Maybe here...

---

Originally by: Nadezhda Andropov

---

Edited by: Nadezhda Andropov on 09/03/2009 14:51:04

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

this is most likely what a real wormhole would look like.

---

No, that's what wormholes in movies look like

---

Originally by: rygore

---

seeing as eve is set a billion years into the future, wormholes would definately be possible.
im sure even several species of farmyard animals would have come to grips with navigating them by this time.
o/

---

Originally by: Graveyard Tan

---

I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?

---

Originally by: iudex

---

Originally by: Levizzenvivious

---

Well, you've got the "proof or STFU"-part right. Unfortunately for you, and your argument, modern science has acquired a good amount of evidence when it comes to The Big Bang theory. For example, no other current theory can offer a better explanation for the universe's background radiation, or the red-shift of distant galaxies (while Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory (which claims that new matter is constantly being created in the center of the universe) is capable of explaining the red-shift, it fails when it comes to explaining the background radiation).

---

The Big Bang is nothing than a theory, an attempt to explain the unexplainable, it's only a guess. And it contradicts the known natural laws of science: according to that theory the whole universe (matter, energy, space, time) came suddenly into existence out of nothing.
How can something be created when there was nothing before - or how can we know that there was nothing before, or what was before the Big Bang, before time ?
I've recently seen an interview with a leading physics scientist who was asked such questions, and his answer was something like that this questions can't be subject to science, since science operates within the scientific laws of the known universe, while the creation of the universe is beyond that laws.

We have to realise that there are certain things that we simply can't understand.
It's a bit like if you ask a bacteria to explain the complexity of the human society. The bacteria can't grasp it, it might offer you a very banal version of it. This model won't be even close to reality, but the bacteria will think it has a clue of it, because it can't imagine that there is something beyond of what it is capable to grasp.
I think the same counts for us when we try to explain the origins of the universe and come up with presumptions like the Big Bang - that's dilettantism and pseudo-science paired with arrogance.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 09/03/2009 15:13:46

Originally by: Nadezhda Andropov

---

Edited by: Nadezhda Andropov on 09/03/2009 14:51:04

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

this is most likely what a real wormhole would look like.

---

No, that's what wormholes in movies look like

---

actually thats a wormhole from the show Farscape.
The wormhole they made for the show is actually crafted from Einsteins equations from Relativity.

thats how a wormhole would break the spacial plane.
a funnel with a widening mouth, a gravitational hole, and gravity bending around it creating a tunnel.

So thats how a wormhole would look like based on Relativity.

---

Originally by: Tareen Kashaar

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 09/03/2009 15:13:46

Originally by: Nadezhda Andropov

---

Edited by: Nadezhda Andropov on 09/03/2009 14:51:04

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

this is most likely what a real wormhole would look like.

---

No, that's what wormholes in movies look like

---

actually thats a wormhole from the show Farscape.
The wormhole they made for the show is actually crafted from Einsteins equations from Relativity.

thats how a wormhole would break the spacial plane.
a funnel with a widening mouth, a gravitational hole, and gravity bending around it creating a tunnel.

So thats how a wormhole would look like based on Relativity.

---

Did you actually read the stuff linked in the OP? Because you are wrong.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

No. I am not wrong.
I am right.

---

Quote:

---

Watch This Video that video gives a visual representation of gravity. It bends due to an objects mass.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Edited by: Tippia on 09/03/2009 20:59:15

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

No. I am not wrong.
I am right.

---

So in other words, you didn't read and watch the link in the OP.

Quote:

---

Watch This Video that video gives a visual representation of gravity. It bends due to an objects mass.

---

In other words, they've reduced a hyperdimensional phenomenon into a 3D representation of how it works, rather than illustrate how it looks, unlike what they've done in the OP link.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking... Boo hoo. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

the link in OP isnt a credible source.

---

Quote:

---

ok you go ahead and believe gif drawings
over Einstein who discovered Relativity, which brought up the theory of womrholes in the first place.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

ok you go ahead and believe gif drawings
over Einstein who discovered Relativity, which brought up the theory of womrholes in the first place.

Because i think Einsteins representation would be the right one.
after all, its his theory.

---

Originally by: Graveyard Tan

---

I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?

---

Originally by: Levizzenvivious

---

You seem to have absolutely no concept of what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. It does not mean "guess". It is the highest state of truth one can achieve within the system of scientific methodology. Nor do you have a clear grasp of what the big bang theory says. Like Tippia said before me, it only describes what happened 10 to the -11th of a second after the singularity appeared. It makes no statements whatsoever concerning what existed before; this remains pure metaphysics.

---

Originally by: Levizzenvivious

---

We do not "have to realize that there are things we cannot understand"; to do so would be the surrender of reason and the spirit of science.

---

Originally by: Levizzenvivious

---

Your simile with bacteria trying to cope with the idea of human society is nothing but a false analogy, because it assumes that it is possible to achieve a complete understanding of the subject, something you claim impossible.

---

Quote:

---

You also failed to respond to my request to provide evidence for telekinesis.

---

Originally by: Primnproper

---

Originally by: rygore

---

seeing as eve is set a billion years into the future, wormholes would definately be possible.
im sure even several species of farmyard animals would have come to grips with navigating them by this time.
o/

---

I thought it was only 10 thousand years or so not a billion years.

I mean a billion years is approx. 1/14 of the age of the universe, 1/5 the age of the solar system or almost twice as long as complex multicelluar life has existed on Earth.

Modern Humans have only existed for at most 500,000 years or 1/2 a million years, so a billion years would be 2000 times as long as humans have existed so far.

By the time we reach that point I think we probably won't even be recoginisable as human or even jove, a human from a billion years from now could be twice as far beyond us as we are beyond a single celled bacteria (ignoring the rate of change of the rate of evolution).

---

Originally by: Celestal

---

I want to know how worms get into space in the first place ?

---

1. A necessary precondition for the formation of a wormhole, or at least the singularity at the centre of the worm hole - is the compression of the mass (which has gravitational influence) below that of the event horizon.



2. But the compression of mass below that of the event horizon was previously not well understood, except for the critical mass required to collapse into a singularity.



3. Scientists have recently won the Nobel Prize for being able to create stuff called Bose-Einstein Condensate in the lab, and discovered its properties.


Here's a hick-up.


4. There is evidence that when sufficient gravitationally massive bodies implode upon themselves, the physical matter becomes Bose-Einstein Condensate - as they implode. (Energy is dissipated as Hawking radiation, the mass is compressed, Bose-Einstein Condensate forms. Hawking radiation and compression of matter are also necessary preconditions for the formation of Bose-Einstein Condensate)



5. One unexpected & unusual property of Bose-Einstein Condensate is that it cannot be compressed below the event horizon, because some mysterious force of repulsion appears once it is compressed beyond a certain point (actually the point of the event-horizon).



6. Therefore the necessary preconditions for the formation of singularities, wormholes and black-holes IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

black holes are 100% real.
weve taken many pictures

infact in the exact center of our own milky way is a super massive black hole
and every single other galaxy we can view has a super massive black hole at the exact center

which is bringing scientists now to believe that super massive black holes have something to do with the creation of galaxies

---

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

black holes are 100% real.
weve taken many pictures

infact in the exact center of our own milky way is a super massive black hole
and every single other galaxy we can view has a super massive black hole at the exact center

which is bringing scientists now to believe that super massive black holes have something to do with the creation of galaxies

---

My point exactly!
As I said before don't shoot me for pointing out the debate.

DaxSnake, how are your photographs able to distinguish between a 'Black-hole' and a 'Graviton star'?

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

The hubble telescope has monitored these black holes
and stars orbiting close to the singularity have dissapeared into it

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

i edited my above post with a better reply, of Feeding and Dormant black holes.

---

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:49:11

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

i edited my above post with a better reply, of Feeding and Dormant black holes.

---

Yet .....

... still provide no evidence that suggests the photograph you provide is a black-hole rather than a graviton star.

When a graviton star is actively feeding it glows white hot sucking in anything and everything.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

i searched for a photo of a dormant black hole that is factual proof.

but cant find one on google and im too lazy to click NEXT NEXT NEXT just to find one.

too many kids school project pictures flooding google rather than real hubble telescope pictures.

if you look up dormant black holes youll find yourself some pictures.
Black holes do exist with picture proof.

---

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 20:57:42

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

i searched for a photo of a dormant black hole that is factual proof.

but cant find one on google and im too lazy to click NEXT NEXT NEXT just to find one.

too many kids school project pictures flooding google rather than real hubble telescope pictures.

if you look up dormant black holes youll find yourself some pictures.
Black holes do exist with picture proof.

---

I'm glad you have faith that black-holes exist. Most scientists don't take science on faith though.

Your picture, to some, as likely contains a graviton star. To those who say it does, do so on the evidence that suggests Bose-Einstein cannot be compressed to form a singularity.

There is a rational reason, then, to reject faith in black-holes.

If you dogmatically assert your photograph contains a black-hole, you have to provide evidence that it contains a singularity. You can't continue simply saying "see a black-hole" because it isn't if it lacks all of the properties of a black-hole - IT ISN'T ONE.

If a graviton star, exists, and looks similiar to a black-hole, and behaves as we've seen these things behave (eating other massive bodies, giving off Hawking radiation), but don't suffer from the theoretical problems of black-holes, than the thing you're mis-labelling 'black-hole' IS in fact, 'graviton star'.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is

---

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is

---

There is no theoretical limit to the current size of a graviton star.

At the end of the day however, there will be many like you who are threatened by the suggestion to abandon the theory of Black-Holes.

So you'll simply have to figure out a way to explain the existence of Bose-Einstein condensate, and its repulsive properties .. and deal with the idea that the formulation of singularities is impossible.

I suggestion however, that dogmatically continuing to make assertions, with no recourse to evidence is, likely not the way to make your case.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:16:47
Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:16:19
Edited by: DaxSnake on 11/03/2009 21:14:59

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Nothing in the universe can accumulate to what that super massive black hole is

---

There is no theoretical limit to the current size of a graviton star.

At the end of the day however, there will be many like you who are threatened by the suggestion to abandon the theory of Black-Holes.

So you'll simply have to figure out a way to explain the existence of Bose-Einstein condensate, and its repulsive properties .. and deal with the idea that the formulation of singularities is impossible.

I suggestion however, that dogmatically continuing to make assertions, with no recourse to evidence is, likely not the way to make your case.

---

k so your like, a nobody on an internet spaceship game message board.

And what i just posted is from a NASA Ph.D. Astrophysicist


Yeah you know way more than him.. No


You haven't even linked one source your getting your information from.

So show me a credible source from an astrophysicist saying what your saying
because i doubt you can do so, and it better not be something from wikipedia

---

Originally by: iudex

---

The only wormholes i know are that caused by a worm in a apple, or special wood-worms in furniture.
The wormholes in space are imaginations of crazy scientists, same as the "big bang". If someone wants to tell me there's a wormhole somewhere out there in space, i'd answer in the old Eve fashion way: proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Yeah you fail.

Wikipedia vs Nasa.gov


I actually said it better not be wikipedia and thats all you can come up with?
Wikipedia

You ARE NOT smarter than an Astrophysicist
stop trying to sound all smart because you did not dedicate your life to the study of astronomy like professionals do.

You are a random nobody playing a videogame.
stop acting like your a supergenious who knows everything cuz he read it on wikipedia.

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Jesus man stop it.
Now your bordering on shenanigans.

You STILL haven't given a credible link for "GRAVITON STARS"

now your just linking to random crap on wikipedia except the one thing your trying to prove.

---

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Originally by: DaxSnake

---

Jesus man stop it.
Now your bordering on shenanigans.

You STILL haven't given a credible link for "GRAVITON STARS"

now your just linking to random crap on wikipedia except the one thing your trying to prove.

---

Oh, so peer reviewed theories only count if they come with an internet link?

At this point, I don't believe you are actually seeking to make genuine progress understanding gravitationally massive bodies that collapse upon themselves. I don't believe I can be any more reasonable with you - given your penchants for logical fallacies.

I believe, what are you are hoping to do, is find some desperate way of salvaging a theory you happen to believe as fact - because Black Holes are just too cool - not to exist. (Damn the evidence, right? They have to exist!)

Although your posts encouraged me to adopt a position opposite the one you happen to have faith in, (for the sake of argument) I did so only because I know how dogmatically people refuse to accept 'evidence' that refutes their favourite theories, and you came across so dogmatically, I couldn't refuse.

In any event, continued attacks on my character isn't going to resolve the debate further, so I rest my case.

---

Originally by: Eventy One

---

Edited by: Eventy One on 11/03/2009 22:31:06
Ok .. I'll be more direct:

Your local university librarian will be more helpful to you than Google.

This is a current debate in astrophysics/cosmology.

PS - I'm sorry I've bruised your ego.

---

Originally by: Tareen Kashaar

---

As much as I dislike watching stupid people argue on the internet, this thread is really amusing :)

---

Originally by: Doctor Nut

---

Originally by: Tareen Kashaar

---

As much as I dislike watching stupid people argue on the internet, this thread is really amusing :)

---

Word. Altough I would like a better/more indepth explination of this young lady's comments on bose-einstein condinsate (please pardon my ignorance). This state of matter created in a lab of particles that barely move making them the coldest things in the universe also make up graviton stars?

---

1. The matter is not yet Bose-Einstein Condensate and keeps compressing below the event horizon, and a singularity, (an infinite) is formed in nature, make the Event Horizon out to be a boundary condition for the Universe, beyond which we cannot peer.


2. The matter at this point is Bose-Einstein Condensate and cannot be compressed further by virtue of the properties of Bose-Einstein Condensate. No universal boundary condition is created, no actual infinite (no singularity) is formed

1. The problem with one, is that in the Nobel Prize experiment that lead to the formation of Bose-Einstein condensate in the lab, answers some of the fundamental questions about the collapse of massive gravitational bodies. It appears that the formation os Bose-Einstein condensate is exactly what is happening as a star collapses upon itself and emits Hawking Radiation.


2. The mathematician David Hilbert (and others) proved that it is impossible for actual infinities to exist in nature, so this poses problems for understanding singularities. If they are not actually rips in the space/time fabric, the mathematics of black-hole formations losses its infinities and becomes merely approximations, where the theory losses its footing. (Blackholes, currently depend upon infinities rather strongly)


3. If indeed a collapsing star, is causing the formation of Bose-Einstein condensate, then the precondition for the formation of a blackhole, that matter continues to compress beyond the event horizon, is impossible. If the preconditions for the formation of something are impossible, that the existence of that thing is impossible