I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

Do you have any sources that dont relate wormholes to GR?

The Wheeler-Morris-Thorne model IS an Ellis wormhole.

The metric presented by Morris and Thorne already appears in 1973 in the work published by H.G. Ellis.

In fact, this model is called the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole model.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.02531.pdf

This doesn't even mention Ellis.

https://inspirehep.net/literature/837615

Seems like maybe Ellis came around and embraced Thorne's negative energy theory.

The first reference links Wheeler with Morris and Thorne. The secone one connects Ellis with the Morris-Thorne model.

Seems like maybe Ellis came around and embraced Thorne's negative energy theory.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

page 13 of the pdf document

The quote from wikipedia is wrong, whoever wrote it did not understand Dr. Ellis' paper.

Then, you lose.

No, until you provide a mechanism clearly explaining what is interacting with matter which causes it to move and how it causes it to move and why in a particular direction, YOU LOSE!
Until you clearly explain why this mechanism wouldn't also work on a RE, YOU LOSE!

So until you provide such a mechanism and explanation, I don't need to do anything, and you continue to lose.

But even that still doesn't help you provide a mechanism.
It sure does.

No, it doesn't.
It does not explain the fundamental interaction with matter like you demand for curved spacetime.
Instead, it appears to be appealed to curved spacetime.
So no, it in no way helps you provide a mechanism.

You still have less than nothing.
You still only have wilful rejection of science, backed up by nothing more than wild speculation which offers no better alternative to the mainstream understanding and have no justification for why it wouldn't work on a RE.

So no, you still lose.

The first reference links Wheeler with Morris and Thorne.

"Wheeler wormholes were not traversable, however, and could, in principle, develop some type of singularity [5]. Then in 1988,
Morris and Thorne proposed the first traversable wormhole"

That's about as much of a connection. Whatever, irrelevant.

The secone one connects Ellis with the Morris-Thorne model.

In the sense that Ellis published his wormhole theory in 73' Morris-Thorne, theirs in 88'. And many others in between and after.

Seems like maybe Ellis came around and embraced Thorne's negative energy theory.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

page 13 of the pdf document

You mean 113? What about it?

The quote from wikipedia is wrong, whoever wrote it did not understand Dr. Ellis' paper.

You would have no idea one way or the other. It is referenced by, "M. S. Morris; K. S. Thorne (1988). "Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity". American Journal of Physics."

Interesting how Morris & Thorne are in support of GR. Are you?

I could intervene right now and point out the inconsistencies of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet wormhole theory.

I could intervene right now and point out (again) that your case is inconsistent (by your own words) with the reality of a round earth.

Let me take care of the EGB wormhole model: they come in two flavors, dilaton and electrovacuum.

The EdGB is unstable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.11170.pdf

The electrovacuum has huge issues with it as well.
 
The causality constraints of higher curvature models were studied, and it was shown in
particular that a theory such as EGB has to be supplemented with massive higher-spin fields in order to be free of causality problems. Causal structure of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) theory has also been studied in [29,30], where different notions closely connected to causality are studied in detail, such as the relation between Killing horizons and characteristic hypersurfaces, hyperbolicity in the near horizon regions.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6737.pdf


I said pg 13 of the pdf document, not pg 113. That's page 116.


The mechanism is very clear: the Ellis wormhole links quarks/bosons/gravitons through quantum entanglement.

I have the references to prove it now.

It cannot appeal to spacetime, since GR cannot handle wormholes/the removal of singularities without the use of aether/exotic matter.

Nonlocal quantum entanglement must originate outside of or beyond 4D spacetime.

Let me take care of the EGB wormhole model: they come in two flavors, dilaton and electrovacuum.

The EdGB is unstable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.11170.pdf

Ok, unstable it is. Again, theoretically. From the paper you cited above, first sentence of the introduction: "Wormholes are so far theoretical objects linking different points in spacetime or even different universes." Theoretical.

The electrovacuum has huge issues with it as well.
 
The causality constraints of higher curvature models were studied, and it was shown in
particular that a theory such as EGB has to be supplemented with massive higher-spin fields in order to be free of causality problems. Causal structure of Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) theory has also been studied in [29,30], where different notions closely connected to causality are studied in detail, such as the relation between Killing horizons and characteristic hypersurfaces, hyperbolicity in the near horizon regions.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6737.pdf

Cool, theoretically.

I said pg 13 of the pdf document, not pg 113. That's page 116.

Which would be page 116 in the actual paper/book. What about it?

The mechanism is very clear: the Ellis wormhole links quarks/bosons/gravitons through quantum entanglement.

I have the references to prove it now.

It cannot appeal to spacetime, since GR cannot handle wormholes/the removal of singularities without the use of aether/exotic matter.

Nonlocal quantum entanglement must originate outside of or beyond 4D spacetime.

Cool, theoretically.

Not anymore.

We have now the first photograph taken of quantum entanglement.

And this is coming from MIT:

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

That wormhole must be an Ellis wormhole (rotating aether absorbing wormhole).

Not anymore.

We have now the first photograph taken of quantum entanglement.

Cool.

And this is coming from MIT:

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

We literally just went through this. Once again, from the MIT article you referenced, "You can’t get entangled without a wormhole":

"Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels."

"Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair."

"The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement."

From an article, "A Link Between Wormholes and Quantum Entanglement" published in Science, regarding what Julian Sonner found in his research referenced in the MIT article above:

"Theoretical physicists have forged a connection between the concept of entanglement—itself a mysterious quantum mechanical connection between two widely separated particles—and that of a wormhole—a hypothetical connection between black holes that serves as a shortcut through space."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/12/link-between-wormholes-and-quantum-entanglement

As well, from an article in Scientific American about the same findings from the MIT article, "Physicists Find a Link between Wormholes and Spooky Action at a Distance" :

"The new theory connects quantum entanglement with Einstein’s general relativity"

"Wormholes are hypothetical shortcuts through spacetime, also known as Einstein–Rosen bridges, after Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, who predicted them in 1935."

"Entanglement has been demonstrated in quantum physics experiments with particles, but wormholes, which arise from general relativity, are purely theoretical."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wormholes-quantum-entanglement-link/

And from the actual paper by Julian Sonner at MIT that your article references, "Holographic Schwinger Effect and the Geometry of Entanglement":

"This observation supports and further explains the claim by Jensen and Karch that the bulk dual of an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair is a string with a wormhole on its world sheet. We suggest that this constitutes a holographically dual realization of the creation of a Wheeler wormhole."

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.211603#fulltext

That wormhole must be an Ellis wormhole (rotating aether absorbing wormhole).

There’s nothing in the literature that says it must be an Ellis Wormhole, aether absorbing. Nothing. Not a thing.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time.

To see what geometry may emerge in the fifth dimension from entangled quarks in the fourth, Sonner employed holographic duality, a concept in string theory. While a hologram is a two-dimensional object, it contains all the information necessary to represent a three-dimensional view. Essentially, holographic duality is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension.

Using holographic duality, Sonner derived the entangled quarks, and found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement


Quantum entanglement = wormholes

A proven fact of science.

Now, photographs have been taken of quantum entanglement.


An Ellis wormhole is aether absorbing. Ellis wormhole = Wheeler-Morris-Thorne wormhole.

If you disagree, please provide an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether/exotic matter.

The mechanism is very clear

No, it is not clear at all.
You are yet to provide any explanation as to what causes the movement of matter, the fundamental interaction which imparts momentum to matter.
Without that you have no mechanism, and thus still have less than nothing.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time.

To see what geometry may emerge in the fifth dimension from entangled quarks in the fourth, Sonner employed holographic duality, a concept in string theory. While a hologram is a two-dimensional object, it contains all the information necessary to represent a three-dimensional view. Essentially, holographic duality is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension.

Using holographic duality, Sonner derived the entangled quarks, and found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole.

For the tenth time, from the article you've quoted above from MIT:

"The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

Quantum entanglement = wormholes

A proven fact of science.

Now, photographs have been taken of quantum entanglement.

You cite Sonner's paper that the MIT article you cite, in part, references. Sonner's paper, "The ER = EPR conjecture and the Schwinger Effect".

"ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that two entangled particles (a so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen or EPR pair) are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge)[1][2] and may be a basis for unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of everything."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

Are you a Relativist now?

An Ellis wormhole is aether absorbing. Ellis wormhole = Wheeler-Morris-Thorne wormhole.

If you disagree, please provide an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether/exotic matter.

- Wheeler's wormhole is from 1957 and makes no mention of aether/ether.
- Ellis' wormhole, 1973, has absorbing ether.
- Morris-Thorne wormhole, 1988, has negative mass/energy, something Ellis disagreed with.

Pick your poison as all are still THEORETICAL.

Clearly Sando doesn't understand what the words Theoretical and Hypothetical mean.

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Well that depends on which vastly incomplete model you want to place your faith in.  UA, intimate plane, denpressure, electric universe, or a couple dozen other examples.

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Glue.

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).

Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

The other FE models can be taken down with no sweat.

A. You couldn’t even answer the question.

B. Gravitation is a field.

Are you saying that the gravitational field has no quanta?

Please answer yes.

I made no claims. Quantum gravity is a separate theory.

Currently accepted theory is gravitation is a field. This explains how water “sticks” to the earth whether you like it or not.

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).
Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

One does not have to understand the root cause for gravity in order to see that it exists and measure its effects. Which makes your objection meaningless.

No one can explain why the universe exists either, but apparently it does.

Quote from: turtles on August 24, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).

Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

The other FE models can be taken down with no sweat.

that does not  answer the question.

Currently accepted theory is gravitation is a field.

That accepted theory has a gravitational field equipped with quanta (gravitons). The Gertsenshtein effect: the transformation of an electromagnetic wave into a gravitational wave (graviton-to-photon conversion effect).

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1390/1/012086/pdf

This explains how water “sticks” to the earth whether you like it or not.

But it doesn't, whether anyone else likes or not.

You still have to prove HOW two gravitons attract each other.

Since you have no possible attractive mechanism, you have nothing.

that does not  answer the question.

Let's answer the question.

FE: rotating Ellis-Wheeler wormholes absorb aether, while the oceans stays in place being bounded on the outside by the ether dome.

RE: pure magic.

the oceans stays in place being bounded on the outside by the ether dome.

HaHaHaHaHaHa sure. That's it. The Ether dome. Is that short for Ethereal?

Spacetime is out, ether is in.

Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That's very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So if there is no spacetime, it's not clear what physics is about.

Nima Arkani-Hamed (Cornell Messenger Lecture 2016)
Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton


The Ether dome.

You better believe it: the green flash paradox proves it is real.

Aether is out, Spacetime is fact.
Aether is doomed. There is no such thing as aether fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That's not very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. Since there is no aether it's clear as to why physics doesn't recognize it.

Fixed it for you

Quote from: turtles on August 24, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

As a matter of interest, what makes the water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

Clearly not attractive gravity (RE).

Unexplained for a spherical Earth.

The other FE models can be taken down with no sweat.

So what does make water stick to the surface of the flat Earth?

I'm still waiting on when sticky became synonymous with water.

As I understand it, the water wouldn't spin off as it's gravitational pull exceeds the exceptionally low "cornering g" of a spinning earth. The water is suspended in a viscous fluid of air and the air on the outside edge *does* spin off, but it both has less weight and is further from the earth's pull, it's also not supported on both sides.