Different laws of physics??

[SirNitram]

That is what I am asking you to back up; your claim that energy can move between 4D universes(Or weren't you aware that the world we live in is 4D?). Back it up or shut the fuck up, it's not a hard concept.

If two universes were to come in contact with one another, the gravity of one should be able to cross into the other universe, assuming that gravity is, as theories claim, a distortion of space into the fuorth dimension.

This is based off the unproven assumption that Time, the fourth dimension, is shared between different 4D universes.

Also, if a wormhole connects two universes, theyre not longer seperate universes, so energy can freely move from one side fo the wormhole to the other. when the wormhole closes, the energy of THE UNIVERSE (meaning all that exists) remains the same. The location changes, but theres no change in energy.

Prove a wormhole can form between seperate universes.

And a while back when they were discussing whether gravity moves at the speed of light whether it could move faster because it moved through the fourth dimension it was assumed by the physicists that energy could move in more then 3 dimensions (and why shouldnt it be able to? its just gotta be pointed there).

Again, assuming there's something magical about the 4th dimension. It's time, and all observation and theory point to it being as self contained as the first 3.

BTW, avoiding the fact I'm demanding you back up your claims and focusing on the minor comment about you playing with the definition of universe is what's called a Red Herring. It's a fallacy.

I thought we were debating the definition of universe and then you changed to energy moving between them.

No, Kojikun, I asked you to back up your claim and added a small quip about you demanding universe be changed, a small quip, but you focused on it awfully hard.

[SirNitram]

This from the dumbass whose redefined the word universe for his completely unproven pet theory. It's called Burden Of Proof, Koji. You have to prove energy can leave a universe.

What's your definition of "universe"? What states that energy cannot leave a universe and enter another (assuming your definition allows for two or more universes to exist).

A set of dimensions. Our own is either a 4D spacetime mishmash, or an 11D mishmash with infinitely small dimensions; depends which theoretical physicist you ask. The simplier explanation is I define it as a set of space and time(The ol' 4 dimensions) that is self-contained. Our universe began with the Big Bang, before that not even time exists, etc.

Certainly not Conservation of Energy. Unless I'm missing something major, CoE states that energy in a closed system must stay constant. It doesn't state anything about the energy of a "universe." Our universe, as we know it, is a closed system. However, if our universe were to connect somehow to a parallel universe, then it would no longer be a closed system, and thus energy could enter or leave it.

A universe is by nature a closed system, at least by present research. If you've got something showing otherwise, feel free to show it..

[Mad]

The simplier explanation is I define it as a set of space and time(The ol' 4 dimensions) that is self-contained. Our universe began with the Big Bang, before that not even time exists, etc.

Okay, so you're defining our 4D universe (or 11D or whatever) as the entire universe, correct? Meaning there are no parallel universes.

Or, if they did exist, they would not be able to interact. Is that correct?

A universe is by nature a closed system, at least by present research. If you've got something showing otherwise, feel free to show it..

It looks like you're trying to say that parallel universes can't interact with each other since they don't exist. That's similar to saying Star Trek and Star Wars can't fight because they'd never meet because they don't exist, since this thread is hypothetical.

Maybe it's just a matter of phrasing. Okay, assume there are multiple 4D "boxes" in the Universe (a "what if" scenario). Each box is a "parallel world," so to speak. They don't interact normally, but assume some connection between two of these boxes was formed somehow. What would prevent energy from leaving one box and entering another?

[Darth Wong]

The simplier explanation is I define it as a set of space and time(The ol' 4 dimensions) that is self-contained. Our universe began with the Big Bang, before that not even time exists, etc.

Okay, so you're defining our 4D universe (or 11D or whatever) as the entire universe, correct? Meaning there are no parallel universes.

None that we have observed, hence none that we need to theorize about in order to explain what we know. Occam's Razor.

[SirNitram]

The simplier explanation is I define it as a set of space and time(The ol' 4 dimensions) that is self-contained. Our universe began with the Big Bang, before that not even time exists, etc.

Okay, so you're defining our 4D universe (or 11D or whatever) as the entire universe, correct? Meaning there are no parallel universes.

Or, if they did exist, they would not be able to interact. Is that correct?

Yes. Because if there are other universes, they certainly don't seem to interact macroscopically, as we've not noticed such happening.

A universe is by nature a closed system, at least by present research. If you've got something showing otherwise, feel free to show it..

It looks like you're trying to say that parallel universes can't interact with each other since they don't exist. That's like saying Star Trek and Star Wars can't fight because they'd never meet because they don't exist.

Not so much that they don't exist, but there's no evidence that one can get there from here, so to speak. And this is SLAM, not a sci-fi forum, so I can say they'll never fight because they'll never meet.

Maybe it's just a matter of phrasing. Okay, assume there are multiple 4D "boxes" in the Universe (a "what if" scenario). Each box is a "parallel world," so to speak. They don't interact normally, but assume some connection between two of these boxes was formed somehow. What would prevent energy from leaving one box and entering another?

If you somehow link the two boxes, I suppose energy would flow through. However, this is a state which has never been observed, so insofar as Koji defending his theory as I asked it's really moot. One could easily argue two connected universe become one universe, but it's messy anyway.

[Mad]

Yes. Because if there are other universes, they certainly don't seem to interact macroscopically, as we've not noticed such happening.

Would these be separate universes, however? Or simply different sets of multi-dimensional "boxes" all inside the same universe? Or would the term "universe" be able to refer to the universe as a whole, or the individual "boxes" depending on context?

Not so much that they don't exist, but there's no evidence that one can get there from here, so to speak. And this is SLAM, not a sci-fi forum, so I can say they'll never fight because they'll never meet.

The premise of this thread is sci-fish, however, in that it assumes that several of these "boxes" exist.

If you somehow link the two boxes, I suppose energy would flow through.

That's all I wanted to know.

However, this is a state which has never been observed, so insofar as Koji defending his theory as I asked it's really moot. One could easily argue two connected universe become one universe, but it's messy anyway.

That's why I tried rephrasing it in terms that didn't use the word "universe." It appears you consider Kojikun's use of the worse "universe" as a misuse of the word. So I took his concept and tried to phrase it less ambiguously.

[kojikun]

nitram: if universes interacted physically we wouldnt notice it because the effets wouldnt involve us (we're contained in our little chunk of the universe, and so any alterations to the universe itself would be unnoticable because we change equally). if radiation can go back and forth, it would indeed show up, but that presumes that you can radiate a 3D object off of the surface its confined to, which is unlike, so EM radiation probably wont b able to go between two universes. however wormholes HAVE been theorized to be able to connect to and even create other universes.

I will look through Hyperspace for support.

[SirNitram]

nitram: if universes interacted physically we wouldnt notice it because the effets wouldnt involve us (we're contained in our little chunk of the universe, and so any alterations to the universe itself would be unnoticable because we change equally).

And where does it say interaction between two universes is changing history, Kojikun? If a wormhole connected the two, we should see a Singularity vomitting out immense energy; yet we don't. White Holes remain unproven and unnoticed, while being something we should be able to spot easily. You continue to base your entire psuedeoscientific theory on unsupported assumptions!

if radiation can go back and forth, it would indeed show up, but that presumes that you can radiate a 3D object off of the surface its confined to, which is unlike, so EM radiation probably wont b able to go between two universes. however wormholes HAVE been theorized to be able to connect to and even create other universes.

I'd love to see that crack-addled proof. And the Disney film The Black Hole is not proof. Disney films are never proof.

Again, you're now twisting desperately to avoid the fact we have no reason to believe that there are other universes!

I will look through Hyperspace for support.

I'm sure you'll continue to assume that the 4th dimension is some magical connector instead of simply Time as well. Your psuedeoscience bores me.

[SirNitram]

Yes. Because if there are other universes, they certainly don't seem to interact macroscopically, as we've not noticed such happening.

Would these be separate universes, however? Or simply different sets of multi-dimensional "boxes" all inside the same universe? Or would the term "universe" be able to refer to the universe as a whole, or the individual "boxes" depending on context?

We're getting into the semantics of multiverses, and it's always icky. If one must have seperate 'boxes', it's easier to keep each as a 'universe', as incorrect as it is, the plural to be multiverse, the whole thing to be Omniverse.

Not so much that they don't exist, but there's no evidence that one can get there from here, so to speak. And this is SLAM, not a sci-fi forum, so I can say they'll never fight because they'll never meet.

The premise of this thread is sci-fish, however, in that it assumes that several of these "boxes" exist.

I didn't see that; I saw a question about whether a writer can use different sets of rules. This does not demand that multiple universes(Boxes) have to exist simulataneously, or that they must be able to interact.

If you somehow link the two boxes, I suppose energy would flow through.

That's all I wanted to know.

However, this is a state which has never been observed, so insofar as Koji defending his theory as I asked it's really moot. One could easily argue two connected universe become one universe, but it's messy anyway.

That's why I tried rephrasing it in terms that didn't use the word "universe." It appears you consider Kojikun's use of the worse "universe" as a misuse of the word. So I took his concept and tried to phrase it less ambiguously.

Literally speaking, it's a definate(And sadly common) misuse, as Universe is supposed to be everything. Mostly, though, I'm just pissed off Koji is spouting more psudeoscience in SLAM.

[kojikun]

Cosmologists have even proposed that startling possibility that our universe is just one among an infinite number of parallel universes. These universes might be compared to a vast collection of soap bubbles suspended in air. Normally, contact between these bubble universes is impossible, but by analyzing Einstein's equations, cosmologists have shown that there might exist a web of wormholes, or tubes, that connect these parallel universes. On each bubble, we can define our own distinctive space and time, which have meaning only on its surfacel outside these bubbles, space and time have no meaning.

Layer, [our wormhole voyager] makes an even more momentous discovery--his Appleworld is actually not the only one in the universe. It is but one apple in a large apple orchard. His apple, he finds out, coexist with hundreds of others, some with worms like themselves, and some without worms. Under certain rare circumstances, he conjectures, it may even be possible to journy between the different apples in the orchard.

Normally, life proceeds on each of these parallel planes, independent of the others. On rare occasions, however, the planes may intersect and, for a brief moment, tear the fabric of space itself. Like the wormhole appearing in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," these gateways make travel possible between these worlds, like a cosmic bridge linking two different universes or points in the same universe. Not surprisingly, Carroll found children much more open to these possibilities than adults, whose prejudices about space and logic become more rigid over time. In fact, Riemann's theory of higher dimensions, as interpreted by Lewis Carroll, has become a permanent part of children's literature and folklore, giving birth to other children's classics over the decades, such as Dorothy's Land of Oz and Peter Pan's Never Never Land.

This rather surprising conclusion from Kerr's solution means that any space prob shot through a spinning black hold along its axis of rotation might, in principle, survive the enormous but finite grviational fields at its center, and go right on through on the mirror universe without being destroyed by infinite curvature. The Einstein-Rosen bridge acts like a tunnel connecting two regions of space-time; it is a wormhole. Thus the Kerr black hole is a gateway to another universe.

Think, for example, of a large collection of soap bubbles, suspended in air. Normally, each soap bubble is like a universe unto itself, except that periodically it bumps into another bubble, forming a larger one, or splits into two smaller bubbles. The difference is that each soap bubble is now an entire ten-dimensional universe. Since space and time can exist only on each bubble, there is no such thing as space and time between the bubbles. Each universe has its own self contained "time." It is meaningless to say that time passes at the same rate in all these universes. (We should, however, stress that travel between these universes is not open to use because of our primitive technological level. furthermore, we should also stress that large quantum transitions on this scale are rare, probably much larger then the life time of our universe.) Most of these universes are dead universes, devoid of any life. On these universes, the laws of physics were different, and hence the physical conditions that made life possible were not satisfied. Perhaps, among the billions of parallel universes, only one (ours) had the right set of physical laws to allow life.

Hawking's "baby unverse" theory, although not a practical method of transportation, certainly raises philosophical and perhaps even religious questions. Already, it has stimulated two long-simmering debates among cosmologists.

One book by Michio Kaku. If you'd like to ask him some more, if you feel I'm not a reliable enough source despite having studied these things since 8 years old, you can email Michio. His email address is MKaku@aol.com.

[SirNitram]

So what we have is a bunch of junk created from:

1) Apparent studying of Einstein's theories whilst high, to presume the possibility of a wormhole existing can be extrapolated to a wormhole connecting to another whole universe.

2) A philosophical model that's been retold since Socrates, twisted from the theory that if there is one world with life, there can be others(Only twisted to 'support' the idea of multiple universes).

3) An exerpt simultaneously referencing DS9, decrying the prejudices of logic(That really puts it clear what kind of person we're talking about), and claiming that higher dimension theory is somehow responsible for stories older than this guy theory. In short, a load of steaming bullshit.

4) Again, assuming that A) A wormhole will exist, B) It is possibel to survive transit and C) It can connect to another universe, none of which have been backed up. If you can prove A, B, and C, that's fine, but these have not been proven anywhere around here.

5) A painful attempt to justify it all that falls on it's face. Exactly what it's trying to say is difficult; the writer seems to start from the basic assumption that multiple universes can exist, then hops to describing this as ten dimensional(Ten? Why? What are the other six that describe this area of bubbles? Why do you need six? If we're inventing dimensions, I can do it with five dimensional space, not ten. Does he offer any explanation for ten, or does it come from the depths of his ass?), then bounces to claim that all must have time(Not necessarily. What requires the same pattern of four dimensions in all universes?), and claims that the only reason we can't observe or travel to them is primitive technology(Occam's Razor, kids. If we can't see it, touch it, perceive it, or influence it, it might as well not be there.), adds the claim that most will be devoid of life(A complete unknown, of course, but he throws it in there as if he's proven it.), the claim that life can only exist within our laws of physics(Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't. Of course, simply stating this does not make it so), and finally noting it's sparked 'philosophical' and 'religious' debate. Neither sound like academic study of physics to me.

One book by Michio Kaku. If you'd like to ask him some more, if you feel I'm not a reliable enough source despite having studied these things since 8 years old, you can email Michio. His email address is MKaku@aol.com.

Many religious fundamentalists study Creationism since they're 8 years old, many write books with the same basics as those quotes. This does not change that what you've thrown out here is blind assumptions, philosophical models, and a healthy dollop of psudeoscience.

[Mad]

We're getting into the semantics of multiverses, and it's always icky. If one must have seperate 'boxes', it's easier to keep each as a 'universe', as incorrect as it is, the plural to be multiverse, the whole thing to be Omniverse.

Well, that's the standard, anyway. I suppose the term "universe" gets redefined in this case, since coming up with a whole new term for what used to refer to our universe would be even trickier and harder to get accepted.

I didn't see that; I saw a question about whether a writer can use different sets of rules. This does not demand that multiple universes(Boxes) have to exist simulataneously, or that they must be able to interact.

From the opening post, his second question: "What about if you had several universes connected, and sometimes the energy could disappear- go into another universe, and it seemingly looks like it vanished."

He's definitely asking if energy can flow from one "box" to another.

Literally speaking, it's a definate(And sadly common) misuse, as Universe is supposed to be everything.

In the event that multiple "boxes" were somehow found to exist, I think the term "universe" would gain an additional definition, rather than coming up with a new word to define our "box." The definitions would probably be the words you used above, since they seem pretty standard in sci-fi.

Mostly, though, I'm just pissed off Koji is spouting more psudeoscience in SLAM.

Well, he's certainly trying to prove a lot more than I am.

[SirNitram]

We're getting into the semantics of multiverses, and it's always icky. If one must have seperate 'boxes', it's easier to keep each as a 'universe', as incorrect as it is, the plural to be multiverse, the whole thing to be Omniverse.

Well, that's the standard, anyway. I suppose the term "universe" gets redefined in this case, since coming up with a whole new term for what used to refer to our universe would be even trickier and harder to get accepted.

I didn't see that; I saw a question about whether a writer can use different sets of rules. This does not demand that multiple universes(Boxes) have to exist simulataneously, or that they must be able to interact.

From the opening post, his second question: "What about if you had several universes connected, and sometimes the energy could disappear- go into another universe, and it seemingly looks like it vanished."

He's definitely asking if energy can flow from one "box" to another.

Ah, well. Good thing you're here to correct me.

Literally speaking, it's a definate(And sadly common) misuse, as Universe is supposed to be everything.

In the event that multiple "boxes" were somehow found to exist, I think the term "universe" would gain an additional definition, rather than coming up with a new word to define our "box." The definitions would probably be the words you used above, since they seem pretty standard in sci-fi.

And fantasy. It's just vexxing to see them twisted in a claim that it's how reality is(Real World rather falls short here), without a shred of proof. I'd like to keep my universe singular until I have to accept there are more out there(As much as I like the idea of multiple universes as a dreamer and a writer, I'm also aware the psychological impact of the certainy of them on the public could be.. Ugly.).

Mostly, though, I'm just pissed off Koji is spouting more psudeoscience in SLAM.

Well, he's certainly trying to prove a lot more than I am.

Key word, trying.

[kojikun]

Nitram did you miss the whole fact that Michio was talking about possibilities based on mathematical support? Fuck, you ask for evidence, I give you the words of the guy probaly best suited to argue this point and you dismiss it!

Oh, btw, 10 dimensional hyperspace is necessary for string theory to work a GUT, which its seeming to do. Its better then the supersymmetry or supergravity theories which worked mathematically until, in the case of supergravity, it was discovered that electrons dont have spin-0 counter parts, etc.

[SirNitram]

Nitram did you miss the whole fact that Michio was talking about possibilities based on mathematical support? Fuck, you ask for evidence, I give you the words of the guy probaly best suited to argue this point and you dismiss it!

Are you just fucking retarded, Kojikun? Maybe I should use lots of bold, multicolour letters to get this through to you. But I'll try Logic one more time, with plenty of punctuation and capital letters. It might penetrate your skull.

1) Saying this guy knows his stuff and therefore is right is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. THIS IS A FALLACY. ERGO, IT IS BAD.

2) You certainly didn't post any of the fucking mathematical support. When someone asks for evidence in support of your theory, you should probably post that.

3) Of course I dismissed those quotes! Did you actually read them?! They're total bullshit, and I showed why they are bullshit. If there's mathematical proof, post it asshole! Or shut the fuck up.

[kojikun]

The quotes are an attempt to condense down into terms someone as stupid as you could understand.

Because I have no interest in wasting my time searching for something you won't understand, prove to me you WILL understand it, and that you're not being a dickhead looking to waste my time by identifying these two equations which are vital in our current model of the universe. If you can do that, then I will attempt to find the very long page filling equations you seek. Ok? Good.

*sigh* stupid fucking lack of symbos.

ih(dY/dt) = -(h²d²Y/2mdx²) + V(x)Y(x,t) = HY(x,t)

R[uv] - (1/2)G[uv]R = -(8pi/c²)GT[uv]

If you can identify both of those equations then I'll make the effort to find Kip's wormhole and parallel universe equations, because maybe then they'll actually be worth something to you, instead of just a bunch of numbers.

[SirNitram]

The quotes are an attempt to condense down into terms someone as stupid as you could understand.

Thanks, I was wondering when you were going to show your usual trollish colours. The quotes you posted were hopeless logically, and I showed that. That you immediately skip past them and claim I just arbitrarily dismissed them really is telling.

Because I have no interest in wasting my time searching for something you won't understand,

You have no interest in proving your case? Why am I not surprised?

prove to me you WILL understand it,

Prove you have anything but insults, psudeoscience, and bullshit, and I'll consider it.

and that you're not being a dickhead looking to waste my time by identifying these two equations which are vital in our current model of the universe. If you can do that, then I will attempt to find the very long page filling equations you seek. Ok? Good.

And if you don't, you'll be rightfully laughed out of this thread for being a little prick who can't debate.

ih(??/?t) = -(h²?²?/2m?x²) + V(x)?(x,t) ? H?(x,t)

R[??] - (1/2)G[??]R = -(8?/c²)GT[??]

What do the variables stand for? Some are recignizable, but the whole point of variables is to be swapped out. Perhaps you should note what the variables stand for instead of just saying 'Here's a string of operations and variables! Tell me what it means!'. Of course, this would require you having something to your case.

As for what it is, ten to one it's some sad attempt to prove the conditions of a wormhole. Since we have never observed a wormhole, it's reaching.

If you can identify both of those equations then I'll make the effort to find Kip's wormhole and parallel universe equations, because maybe then they'll actually be worth something to you, instead of just a bunch of numbers.

Ad hominems galore! Sorry, Kojikun. This is SLAM. You have to back your bullshit up. What you've thrown out so far is pathetically weak shit I would expect from a fundie site.

Post your evidence, and yes, the math is demanded, or concede, you worthless asscrack. Saying 'Well, you wouldn't understand it!' is a load of bullshit.

[kojikun]

Thanks, I was wondering when you were going to show your usual trollish colours. The quotes you posted were hopeless logically, and I showed that. That you immediately skip past them and claim I just arbitrarily dismissed them really is telling.

Considering you didn't attack the points in them bu rather the way they sounded can you honestly blame me?

You have no interest in proving your case? Why am I not surprised?

Ofcourse I have interest, just not if you're completely illequipped to understand the evidence. A few hundred pages of advanced mathematics isn't worth much if you don't understand it do you?

Prove you have anything but insults, psudeoscience, and bullshit, and I'll consider it.

*snicker* Try to not dodge points because you have no arguement.

And if you don't, you'll be rightfully laughed out of this thread for being a little prick who can't debate.

I know I can't debate. I'm still correct.

What do the variables stand for? Some are recignizable, but the whole point of variables is to be swapped out. Perhaps you should note what the variables stand for instead of just saying 'Here's a string of operations and variables! Tell me what it means!'. Of course, this would require you having something to your case.

I appologise for the question marky version. I assumed incorrectly that phpBB would allow me to insert unicode symbols but it didnt. Check the post again, it has readable vars (and readilly identifiable, if you know the equation).

As for what it is, ten to one it's some sad attempt to prove the conditions of a wormhole. Since we have never observed a wormhole, it's reaching.

Not even close. But thank you for proving to everyone why you're not arguing against wormholes, you're arguing against me.

Nitram: I want mathematical proof!
Me: Try this on for size, Einstein.
Nitram: The math probably is bullshit even tho I don't understand it but I'm concluding its bullshit because we haven't seen wormholes just like we haven't seen the core of the earth or of the sun or the big bang or anything else concluded with math so I'm just being a dick and picking and choosing! Wee.

Ad hominems galore! Sorry, Kojikun. This is SLAM. You have to back your bullshit up. What you've thrown out so far is pathetically weak shit I would expect from a fundie site.

And you have to back up your request with a reason for me to make the effort.

Post your evidence, and yes, the math is demanded, or concede, you worthless asscrack. Saying 'Well, you wouldn't understand it!' is a load of bullshit.

Will you understand the math? No. You already thought I posted evidence for wormholes, how will you comprehend hundreds of pages of complex math dealing with higher dimensions and paralle universes if you cant even IDENTIFY Shcrodingers or Einsteins relativistic versions of Maxwells equations?!!?!!!

[SirNitram]

Thanks, I was wondering when you were going to show your usual trollish colours. The quotes you posted were hopeless logically, and I showed that. That you immediately skip past them and claim I just arbitrarily dismissed them really is telling.

Considering you didn't attack the points in them bu rather the way they sounded can you honestly blame me?

Let's see, the points were supported entirely by assumptions, philosophy, and appeals to authority. Hell, it even plays the 'adherence to logic is bad towards understanding this' card which we see from the Fundies. You expect me to take this seriously without something with some meat?

You have no interest in proving your case? Why am I not surprised?

Ofcourse I have interest, just not if you're completely illequipped to understand the evidence. A few hundred pages of advanced mathematics isn't worth much if you don't understand it do you?

Ah yes; the old 'You wouldn't understand' card. Exactly like Fundies.

Prove you have anything but insults, psudeoscience, and bullshit, and I'll consider it.

*snicker* Try to not dodge points because you have no arguement.

Avoidance of evidence! Just like fundies!

And if you don't, you'll be rightfully laughed out of this thread for being a little prick who can't debate.

I know I can't debate. I'm still correct.

Assertion of victory without getting there! Did you get your debating skills from RR?

What do the variables stand for? Some are recignizable, but the whole point of variables is to be swapped out. Perhaps you should note what the variables stand for instead of just saying 'Here's a string of operations and variables! Tell me what it means!'. Of course, this would require you having something to your case.

I appologise for the question marky version. I assumed incorrectly that phpBB would allow me to insert unicode symbols but it didnt. Check the post again, it has readable vars (and readilly identifiable, if you know the equation).

Ah, I see. Unless I've studied this load of psuedeoscience, I'm unworthy to debate it. Hey, just like 'If you don't acknowledge the Bible is true, you can't debate Creationism'!

As for what it is, ten to one it's some sad attempt to prove the conditions of a wormhole. Since we have never observed a wormhole, it's reaching.

Not even close. But thank you for proving to everyone why you're not arguing against wormholes, you're arguing against me.

Nitram: I want mathematical proof!
Me: Try this on for size, Einstein.
Nitram: The math probably is bullshit even tho I don't understand it but I'm concluding its bullshit because we haven't seen wormholes just like we haven't seen the core of the earth or of the sun or the big bang or anything else concluded with math so I'm just being a dick and picking and choosing! Wee.

Strawman, of course, but I'm tired of drawing the obvious parallel of debating styles.

Ad hominems galore! Sorry, Kojikun. This is SLAM. You have to back your bullshit up. What you've thrown out so far is pathetically weak shit I would expect from a fundie site.

And you have to back up your request with a reason for me to make the effort.

You don't actually understand how to carry on a logical debate, do you?

Post your evidence, and yes, the math is demanded, or concede, you worthless asscrack. Saying 'Well, you wouldn't understand it!' is a load of bullshit.

Will you understand the math? No. You already thought I posted evidence for wormholes, how will you comprehend hundreds of pages of complex math dealing with higher dimensions and paralle universes if you cant even IDENTIFY Shcrodingers or Einsteins relativistic versions of Maxwells equations?!!?!!!

You posted a series of operations and variables; if you had stayed awake during math, you know the point of a variable is to be able to represent different numbers. Again, you are playing the 'If you don't already agree with me, you can't debate' bullshit we see here from fundies.

[kojikun]

Concession offered temporarilly on grounds that I haven't given equations (which you've already dismissed because you've convinced yourself of the answer).

Concession also accepted on grounds that you don't have a fucking clue what the equations mean and cannot argue EITHER WAY, for or against wormholes and parallel universes due to ignorance.

But I'll find you your equations. Even tho you've already demonstrated to be incapable of understanding them. The simplest (and some fo the oldest) equations relevant to modern physics (relativity and quantum physics) were completely out of your league. But ok, I'll find you your equations for wormholes and parallel universes.

[SirNitram]

Concession offered temporarilly on grounds that I haven't given equations (which you've already dismissed because you've convinced yourself of the answer).

Concession accepted, though of course you couldn't go even this sentence without claiming I'm the unreasonable one.

Concession also accepted on grounds that you don't have a fucking clue what the equations mean and cannot argue EITHER WAY, for or against wormholes and parallel universes due to ignorance.

Concession Accepted that you are claiming the same bullshit as Creationists.

But I'll find you your equations. Even tho you've already demonstrated to be incapable of understanding them. The simplest (and some fo the oldest) equations relevant to modern physics (relativity and quantum physics) were completely out of your league. But ok, I'll find you your equations for wormholes and parallel universes.

And I'm sure it'll be just as disconnected from the actual evidence for your argument as the rest(Here's a hint: Simply posting GR or SR will not prove your argument).

[kojikun]

Concession accepted, though of course you couldn't go even this sentence without claiming I'm the unreasonable one.

You dismissed an equation that was not even presented to you as being false. That IS unreasonable.

Concession Accepted that you are claiming the same bullshit as Creationists.

No, I'm claiming that I don't have the math yet and that you won't understand it.

And I'm sure it'll be just as disconnected from the actual evidence for your argument as the rest(Here's a hint: Simply posting GR or SR will not prove your argument).

It does proove it, toots. You just don't have the background in theoretical physics required to apply the equations. But thank you for showing how you dismiss evidence you haven't even seen yet.

[SirNitram]

And I'm sure it'll be just as disconnected from the actual evidence for your argument as the rest(Here's a hint: Simply posting GR or SR will not prove your argument).

It does proove it, toots. You just don't have the background in theoretical physics required to apply the equations. But thank you for showing how you dismiss evidence you haven't even seen yet.

You can't even go a post without yet more of this 'You're set in your ways, you're bad, you're wrong!' nonsense. You want to know why I am increasingly of the mind this stuff you post is a load of bullshit?

Normally, life proceeds on each of these parallel planes, independent of the others. On rare occasions, however, the planes may intersect and, for a brief moment, tear the fabric of space itself. Like the wormhole appearing in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," these gateways make travel possible between these worlds, like a cosmic bridge linking two different universes or points in the same universe. Not surprisingly, Carroll found children much more open to these possibilities than adults, whose prejudices about space and logic become more rigid over time. In fact, Riemann's theory of higher dimensions, as interpreted by Lewis Carroll, has become a permanent part of children's literature and folklore, giving birth to other children's classics over the decades, such as Dorothy's Land of Oz and Peter Pan's Never Never Land.

It uses DS9 as support, claims influence over stories older than modern physics, and, well, the bolded part sums it up.

Here, we'll post it again.

Carroll found children much more open to these possibilities than adults, whose prejudices about space and logic become more rigid over time.

That's only exactly what we hear from Fundies who want to indoctorine people; it'll raise suspicion in any logical person.

[kojikun]

Good job, ignore the part where I show you're prejudiced against the idea and infact have absolutely no interest in the equation at all. Good job, dickhead. ::claps::

You can't even go a post without yet more of this 'You're set in your ways, you're bad, you're wrong!' nonsense. You want to know why I am increasingly of the mind this stuff you post is a load of bullshit?

Because you've made up your mind before the fact. Duh.

It uses DS9 as support, claims influence over stories older than modern physics, and, well, the bolded part sums it up.

Here, we'll post it again.

Carroll found children much more open to these possibilities than adults, whose prejudices about space and logic become more rigid over time.

That's only exactly what we hear from Fundies who want to indoctorine people; it'll raise suspicion in any logical person.

And you proved the whole point of that part of the book by dismissing an equation YOU HADNT EVEN SEEN. Thats not very scientific off you, nitram, to say something is wrong when you dont even know what it is.

[SirNitram]

Good job, ignore the part where I show you're prejudiced against the idea and infact have absolutely no interest in the equation at all. Good job, dickhead. ::claps::

Yes, I know you think you're clever, but I could really care less. I'm revealing why I am prejudicial.. Beyond the fact I've already shown most of it to be psuedeoscience. You just skipped that post entirely.

You can't even go a post without yet more of this 'You're set in your ways, you're bad, you're wrong!' nonsense. You want to know why I am increasingly of the mind this stuff you post is a load of bullshit?

Because you've made up your mind before the fact. Duh.

Yea, all else fails, claim your opponent is unreasonable, eh Koji?

It uses DS9 as support, claims influence over stories older than modern physics, and, well, the bolded part sums it up.

Here, we'll post it again.

Carroll found children much more open to these possibilities than adults, whose prejudices about space and logic become more rigid over time.

That's only exactly what we hear from Fundies who want to indoctorine people; it'll raise suspicion in any logical person.

And you proved the whole point of that part of the book by dismissing an equation YOU HADNT EVEN SEEN. Thats not very scientific off you, nitram, to say something is wrong when you dont even know what it is.

Can't very well support something I've not seen. I'm dealing with what I'm shown; nothing prevented you from putting up something that actually supported the theory, instead of something showing it to be what it is: Something that won't stand up to an educated adults grasp of logic, so it must be pitched to children.