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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClamShell
  • Start date Start date
ClamShell
Messages
221
Reaction score
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


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...
 


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]
 


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.
 

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
View full post »

Thread 'A sufficient condition for integrability of equation ##\nabla g=0##'

In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top