A red herring is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent

  • Thread starter ClamShell
  • Start date
In summary, the "Stargate" bridge is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent. A digression can, similarly, be a verbal tactic of diversion, but has no place in a serious debate; and the diversion of digression may also be in play. The wormhole(wormH) has been called a "red herring" by DaveC and I agree; as it is a diversion from the "normal" concerns of black hole(BH) speculations. So, I must also say that "red herrings" attract "red herrings". Fact of life.
  • #1
ClamShell
221
0
A "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent

From wiki:

'A "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent. A digression can, similarly, be a verbal tactic of diversion, but has no place in a serious debate; and the diversion of digression may also be in play'

And I must add:

The wormhole(wormH) has been called a "red herring" by DaveC and I agree; as
it is a diversion from the "normal" concerns of black hole(BH) speculations. So, I
must also say that "red herrings" attract "red herrings". Fact of life.

Thirty days ago I favored dismissal of the "Stargate" bridge; but after reading wiki's and their links, I'm not so sure anymore. Instant, horizon to horizon flow through a wormH has an obvious symmetry, so what might be conserved?...Input and output entropies are what might be conserved. And the only way to effectively conserve entropy is not to damage the traveler in ANY way. Weightless free-fall is an extremely non-invasive choice of mechanism and I have
chosen this mode as a way for any particle to cross the BH horizon. I've got problems with discarding the singularity in favor of a wormH, but my intuitive approach allows me to disregard that for now, and I've never taken the "singularity" seriously, anyway. I don't like Hawking radiation(HR) either. IE, HR is advertised as coming from the inside of the
BH horizon, but there is reason to conclude that the pair-production is on our side of the
BH horizon and is just another example of unstable orbits outside (but near) the horizon;
our side.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Kip Thorne has this to say in BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS 1994
Wormholes and time machines today are regarded as outrageous by most physicsts...their existence is controlled not by Einstein's rather permissive laws, but rather by the more restrictive laws of quantum fields in curved spacetime, and quantum gravity.

Roger Penrose has a sophisticated discussion in his ROAD TO REALITY, 30.6, where he
[ discusses the fact that the worldline for such a traveler is not timelike everywhere] points out theoretically that negative energy densities might hold open a wormhole long enough for passage...He does not take such a possibility seriously and believes most other physicsts concur...
 
  • #3


Found the view of Leonard Susskind, from THE BLACK HOLE WAR, 2008: (70-71)

...black holes are not gateways to heaven or hell or to other universes or even tunnels that lead back to our own universe...the wormhole opens and closes so quickly that it is impossible for anything to pass through including light...Einstein and Rosen were discussing an "eternal black hole" one that exists not only into the infinite future but also the infinite past...(referring I think to the possibility of wormholes) ...When Einstein's equations are applied to the formation of [real, finite duration] black holes the black holes simply do not have wormholes attached to them. QUOTE]
 
  • #4


Naty1 said:
Found the view of Leonard Susskind, from THE BLACK HOLE WAR, 2008: (70-71)

...black holes are not gateways to heaven or hell or to other universes or even tunnels that lead back to our own universe...the wormhole opens and closes so quickly that it is impossible for anything to pass through including light...Einstein and Rosen were discussing an "eternal black hole" one that exists not only into the infinite future but also the infinite past...(referring I think to the possibility of wormholes) ...When Einstein's equations are applied to the formation of [real, finite duration] black holes the black holes simply do not have wormholes attached to them. QUOTE]

Yup, it's a "red herring"...I've not got much of an opinion on
wormholes except that some folks want a black hole horizon
on one end and a white hole horizon on the other. If we stick
to the wikipedia and links, PF guidelines should not be an issue.
Here's hoping that somebody(s) comes up with something new
and sensible. Thanks for the quotes...that's what I hoped for.
 

1. What is a red herring?

A red herring is a debating tactic where an opponent attempts to divert attention away from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant or misleading topic.

2. Why is it called a red herring?

The term "red herring" originated from the practice of using a strong-smelling fish to distract hunting dogs from finding their intended target.

3. How does a red herring work in a debate?

A red herring works by shifting the focus of the debate onto a different topic that may be more emotionally charged or easier to argue, in order to avoid addressing the original issue.

4. Can a red herring be used for positive purposes?

Yes, a red herring can be used to introduce a relevant but previously overlooked topic in a debate in order to provide a new perspective or bring attention to a particular issue.

5. How can one identify and counter a red herring in a debate?

One can identify a red herring by noticing a sudden change in topic that does not directly address the main issue. To counter it, one should stay focused on the original topic and address the tactic by pointing out its irrelevance and redirecting the discussion back to the main issue.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top