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

  • 898 Replies
  • 89671 Views
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #630 on: June 24, 2020, 11:43:09 PM »
that didn't answer the question.

is the entangled particle on the other side of the wormhole on the flat earth?
is it absorbing aether?
does direction matter or just that its spinning?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #631 on: June 24, 2020, 11:52:02 PM »
All particles have gray wormholes, in the center of the wormhole is the mechanism which provides the constant torque necessary for the wormhole to rotate at very high speeds. Without that torque, all wormholes would collapse instantly, there would be no atoms, no visible matter.

The wormhole is represented by the receptive/emissive vortices (knots/loops) of the particle. Receptive: dextrorotatory; emissive: laevorotatory.

The wormhole absorb aether and it can also emit aether (gravity/antigravity). The real universe is to be found at the most infinitesimal level in the center of the mechanism which provides the torque: a constant source of acoustic power (sound) which activates the wormholes.

The entangled particle is the wormhole itself. The "other side" is represented by the center of the particle/wormhole. It has to absorb/emit aether since otherwise the wormholes would collapse and so would the atom.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #632 on: June 25, 2020, 12:37:47 AM »
that makes no sense.
entangled particles are individual particles that influence each other's state.
these are two particles, not one particle with a wormhole to no where.
so where is the other side of the wormhole?
and you never answered the question on spin.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #633 on: June 25, 2020, 12:51:14 AM »
Yes, entangled particles are distinct particles.

They each have a wormhole, they are wormholes (loops/knots).

The "other side" of the wormhole is the very center of the wormhole: the particles are entangled by the hyperspace which connects their centers.

Wormholes have two possible spins: receptive (right handed spin) and emissive (left handed spin).

Gravitons = right handed spin wormholes

Antigravitons = left handed spin wormholes

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #634 on: June 25, 2020, 12:58:31 AM »
entangled particles are distinct particles.
one spins as a grav.
the other spins as an antigrav.
each entangled particle has its own wormhole - the entanglement doesnt' connect one end of the worm hole with the other end?
by definition the worm hole goes to somewhere else no?

where are these antigrav particles?
because by your description below, an antigrav will spit the aether the other direction.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #635 on: June 25, 2020, 01:08:25 AM »
All gravitons are distinct wormholes and are connected by a hyperspace which manifests itself in the very center of the gray wormhole.

A graviton has a large receptive wormhole, and a small emissive wormhole, the smaller wormhole connects it to other gravitons to form a string of subquarks (D-gravitons).

An antigraviton has a large emissive wormhole, and a small receptive wormhole (vortex).

Entanglement = activation of the hyperspace which connects the center of a wormhole (particle) to another wormhole (particle).

The center of the wormhole is the "other side".

Antigravitons provide the BIOCHIRALITY (left handed molecules) of each living organism.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #636 on: June 25, 2020, 01:12:58 AM »
All gravitons are distinct wormholes and are connected by a hyperspace which manifests itself in the very center of the gray wormhole.

A graviton has a large receptive wormhole, and a small emissive wormhole, the smaller wormhole connects it to other gravitons to form a string of subquarks (D-gravitons).

An antigraviton has a large emissive wormhole, and a small receptive wormhole (vortex).

Entanglement = activation of the hyperspace which connects the center of a wormhole (particle) to another wormhole (particle).

The center of the wormhole is the "other side".

Antigravitons provide the BIOCHIRALITY (left handed molecules) of each living organism.

So this is how water sticks to the globe?

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #637 on: June 25, 2020, 01:19:11 AM »
All gravitons are distinct wormholes and are connected by a hyperspace which manifests itself in the very center of the gray wormhole.

A graviton has a large receptive wormhole, and a small emissive wormhole, the smaller wormhole connects it to other gravitons to form a string of subquarks (D-gravitons).

An antigraviton has a large emissive wormhole, and a small receptive wormhole (vortex).

Entanglement = activation of the hyperspace which connects the center of a wormhole (particle) to another wormhole (particle).

The center of the wormhole is the "other side".

Antigravitons provide the BIOCHIRALITY (left handed molecules) of each living organism.

can you draw a worm hole?
conventional science shows a wormhole has a start and end.
middle is not a thing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #638 on: June 25, 2020, 01:32:50 AM »
Here is the true gray wormhole:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/e7/0e/e1e70e552bda4aafa6dadc10e208acd1.gif

This is the center of the wormhole providing the torque for the vortices of the wormhole itself. One tetrahedron is the shadow of the other.

Here is how subquarks can connect to each other:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #639 on: June 25, 2020, 01:40:50 AM »
ok code
here's your layman's version.
does this make sense to you?
wormholes that don't have ends, just middles?
antigravitons in some hyperspace?
videos of mugs turning into donuts?


*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #640 on: June 25, 2020, 02:06:39 AM »
Gravitons are knots/loops.
Proof:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf
You sure do love making a bunch of baseless claims, claiming to have proof, and then providing a link which is not proof of your claim at all, and to top it off, claims which come completely out of nowehere.

You are just spamming baseless claim after baseless claim, resorting to wild speculation, all to avoid providing a mechanism.

Again, where is your mechanism describing the interaction of aether and matter which results in a force being applied to the matter, clearly explaining how that force is generated and its directionality?

Until you provide that you will continue to have less than nothing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #641 on: June 25, 2020, 02:30:50 AM »
Wormholes have ends, of course.



However, in the center of the wormhole we have the spinning tetrahedrons:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/e7/0e/e1e70e552bda4aafa6dadc10e208acd1.gif

The hyperspace connects the centers of the wormholes, particles/strings float in aether.


Now, the fantastic aether mechanism which provides the weight of an object:


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.


Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.

These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.

Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.

These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #642 on: June 25, 2020, 02:53:53 AM »
Wormholes have ends, of course.


What bit of woo-science dreamed that "knitted jacket" up?

Quote from: sandokhan
However, in the center of the wormhole we have the spinning tetrahedrons:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/e7/0e/e1e70e552bda4aafa6dadc10e208acd1.gif

Evidence for you claims, thank you, Mr Sandokhan.

Once you post those images we know you've totally lost touch with reality.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #643 on: June 25, 2020, 03:05:22 AM »
A gray wormhole needs torque to provide the continuous rotation (at very high speeds).

At the same time, you have the Riemann energy levels which originate in the boson itself to account for.

How then do you fit these undeniable facts together?

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #644 on: June 25, 2020, 03:10:39 AM »
Wormholes have ends
And those ends in no way help you explain why things fall.
Again, where is your mechanism for the interaction of aether and matter which clearly explains how the aether produces a force on the matter and the directionality of that force.

Without that, you will continue to have less than nothing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #645 on: June 25, 2020, 03:13:56 AM »
You are wasting everyone's time here, which is against the rules.

My references prove that the rotating Ellis wormhole attains weight.

If you disagree, you must provide a reference which refutes that point.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.

Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.

These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.

Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.

These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)


*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #646 on: June 25, 2020, 03:18:34 AM »
You are wasting everyone's time here, which is against the rules.
And projecting again.
You are the one repeatedly spamming pure nonsense to avoid the fact that you have no mechanism.
And you are repeated lying about your reference.

My references prove that the rotating Ellis wormhole attains weight.
No, they don't.
As pointed out, weight isn't even mentioned in the paper.
Again, mass and weight are vastly different things.

Now why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and provide a mechanism? A mechanism which clearly explains the interaction between matter and aether that causes a force to be applied to matter in a particular direction.
Until you do, every post of yours is just a waste of time, and you continue to have less than nothing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #647 on: June 25, 2020, 03:22:57 AM »
I am not wasting anyone's time here in any way, shape or form.

I am providing the required references.

If you disagree, you must provide a reference which refutes that point.

Your denials count for nothing.


You cannot explain mass now.

No one can.

So you have nothing on this issue too.

mass = density x volume

density = specific weight/g

Everything comes back to the weight, always.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.

Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.


These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.

Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.

These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #648 on: June 25, 2020, 05:26:37 AM »
I am not wasting anyone's time here in any way, shape or form.
You certainly are with statements like you make below!

Quote from: sandokhan
I am providing the required references.
Sure you provide references that do not say what you claim they say until you add a bit of your own unproven ideas.

Quote from: sandokhan
If you disagree, you must provide a reference which refutes that point.
You own references, when read correctly, usually do not support what you claim!

Quote from: sandokhan
Your denials count for nothing.
You cannot explain mass now.
No one can.
But can you without dragging in totally unsupportable hypotheses?

Quote from: sandokhan
So you have nothing on this issue too.

mass = density x volume

density = specific weight/g

Everything comes back to the weight, always.
Says who? Not the following paper! It makes no mention of weight!
Not only that but g varies from place to place on the Earth's surface and in space is totally meaningless.
This makes your "mass = density x volume; density = specific weight/g" totally useless.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions
The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.
Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.
Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

Have you even read the paper? Look at the Abstract:
Quote from: Burkhard Kleihaus and Jutta Kunz

Abstract
We present rotating wormhole solutions in General Relativity, which are supported by a phantom scalar field. These solutions evolve from the static Ellis wormhole, when the throat is set into rotation. As the rotational velocity increases, the throat deforms until at a maximal value of the rotational velocity, an extremal Kerr solution is encountered. The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment. They exhibit ergospheres and possess bound
orbits.

So sure, the paper says that "The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass".

Quote from: sandokhan
These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable. This is how an object attains weight.
But nowhere does that paper say "This is how an object attains weight".
1) The paper never mentions "weight".
2) The only mentioning of "mass" are in relation to the mass of the wormholes

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.
These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)
Sure it says that "These wormholes have throats with radii of order of the Planck length, and could
serve as a model for space-time foam".

But you have no justification to claim "this part of the aether mechanism". The paper says no such thing!

See what I mean by "Sure you provide references that do not say what you claim they say until you add a bit of your own unproven ideas."

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #649 on: June 25, 2020, 05:33:12 AM »
Top right corner of the squiggly coloured thing says "electricity".
Why?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #650 on: June 25, 2020, 06:02:02 AM »
Go ahead and explain what "mass" is.

You won't be able to.

No physicist can.

”Mass is a very important property of matter, and we have nothing in our current theory that says even a word about it”

Claude Detraz, one of the two research directors at CERN

“We are about to enter the 21st century but our understanding of the origin of inertia, mass, and gravitation still remains what has been for centuries – an outstanding puzzle”

Vesselin Petkov


You also GOT NOTHING when it comes to explaining mass.


This makes your "mass = density x volume; density = specific weight/g" totally useless.

Says who? You?

g is measured at nucleon level!

https://arxiv.org/html/math-ph/0009025


Planck length is based on G.


G is a quantum function!

Here is the correct quantum formula for G:

G = 1/δzptp2

δzp = ether/zero point field mass-density equivalent

tp = Planck time

The proof uses a formula derived by B. Haisch and A. Rueda in 2000:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9909043.pdf


See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

You have been proven wrong.

Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

Plenty of papers.


https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-f/f53bab12e4a2cc303dd1339c2e7cc8cd

Bell Inequality from Holographic Gravity

The Einstein-Rosen bridge uses a degenerate metric: only the Ellis ether theory can take GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model.



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

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

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

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

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.


Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

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


GR cannot explain quantum entanglement/wormholes:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/pdf


A traversable wormhole requires scalar fields/ether in order to function.


But nowhere does that paper say "This is how an object attains weight".
1) The paper never mentions "weight".
2) The only mentioning of "mass" are in relation to the mass of the wormholes


You dummy.

The rotating Ellis wormhole is part of every particle, gravitons included.

See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 09:07:31 AM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #651 on: June 25, 2020, 06:08:09 AM »
Wormholes have ends, of course.



However, in the center of the wormhole we have the spinning tetrahedrons:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/e7/0e/e1e70e552bda4aafa6dadc10e208acd1.gif

The hyperspace connects the centers of the wormholes, particles/strings float in aether.


Now, the fantastic aether mechanism which provides the weight of an object:


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.


Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.

These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.

Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.

These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)

Is that a wormhole? You have also claimed it’s ether and you claimed it was an atom. So which is it?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #652 on: June 25, 2020, 07:30:39 AM »
WEIGHT OF A SUBQUARK FORMULA



(m = W/g)

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

Partons are Feynman's particles which make up protons and neutrons ahd have fractional charges.

Partons are positrons:

https://vixra.org/pdf/1910.0161v1.pdf


W = -mg formula at subquark/graviton level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 01:49:04 PM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #653 on: June 25, 2020, 07:38:18 AM »
Patrons are quarks and gluons.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #654 on: June 25, 2020, 09:52:49 AM »
I am not wasting anyone's time here in any way, shape or form.
You certainly are with statements like you make below!

Quote from: sandokhan
I am providing the required references.
Sure you provide references that do not say what you claim they say until you add a bit of your own unproven ideas.

Quote from: sandokhan
If you disagree, you must provide a reference which refutes that point.
You own references, when read correctly, usually do not support what you claim!

Quote from: sandokhan
Your denials count for nothing.
You cannot explain mass now.
No one can.
But can you without dragging in totally unsupportable hypotheses?

Quote from: sandokhan
So you have nothing on this issue too.

mass = density x volume

density = specific weight/g

Everything comes back to the weight, always.
Says who? Not the following paper! It makes no mention of weight!
Not only that but g varies from place to place on the Earth's surface and in space is totally meaningless.
This makes your "mass = density x volume; density = specific weight/g" totally useless.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions
The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.
Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.
Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

Have you even read the paper? Look at the Abstract:
Quote from: Burkhard Kleihaus and Jutta Kunz

Abstract
We present rotating wormhole solutions in General Relativity, which are supported by a phantom scalar field. These solutions evolve from the static Ellis wormhole, when the throat is set into rotation. As the rotational velocity increases, the throat deforms until at a maximal value of the rotational velocity, an extremal Kerr solution is encountered. The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment. They exhibit ergospheres and possess bound
orbits.

So sure, the paper says that "The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass".

Quote from: sandokhan
These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable. This is how an object attains weight.
But nowhere does that paper say "This is how an object attains weight".
1) The paper never mentions "weight".
2) The only mentioning of "mass" are in relation to the mass of the wormholes

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.
These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)
Sure it says that "These wormholes have throats with radii of order of the Planck length, and could
serve as a model for space-time foam".

But you have no justification to claim "this part of the aether mechanism". The paper says no such thing!

See what I mean by "Sure you provide references that do not say what you claim they say until you add a bit of your own unproven ideas."

I completely agree with you. sandokan - just messing up our brains. With incomprehensible ideas.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #655 on: June 25, 2020, 10:05:48 AM »
Go ahead and explain what "mass" is.

You won't be able to.

No physicist can.

”Mass is a very important property of matter, and we have nothing in our current theory that says even a word about it”

Claude Detraz, one of the two research directors at CERN

“We are about to enter the 21st century but our understanding of the origin of inertia, mass, and gravitation still remains what has been for centuries – an outstanding puzzle”

Vesselin Petkov


You also GOT NOTHING when it comes to explaining mass.


This makes your "mass = density x volume; density = specific weight/g" totally useless.

Says who? You?

g is measured at nucleon level!

https://arxiv.org/html/math-ph/0009025


Planck length is based on G.


G is a quantum function!

Here is the correct quantum formula for G:

G = 1/δzptp2

δzp = ether/zero point field mass-density equivalent

tp = Planck time

The proof uses a formula derived by B. Haisch and A. Rueda in 2000:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9909043.pdf


See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

You have been proven wrong.

Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

Plenty of papers.


https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-f/f53bab12e4a2cc303dd1339c2e7cc8cd

Bell Inequality from Holographic Gravity

The Einstein-Rosen bridge uses a degenerate metric: only the Ellis ether theory can take GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model.



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

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

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

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

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.


Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

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


GR cannot explain quantum entanglement/wormholes:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/pdf


A traversable wormhole requires scalar fields/ether in order to function.


But nowhere does that paper say "This is how an object attains weight".
1) The paper never mentions "weight".
2) The only mentioning of "mass" are in relation to the mass of the wormholes


You dummy.

The rotating Ellis wormhole is part of every particle, gravitons included.

See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

Physicists have long explained what mass and gravity are, and without your stubborn ideas with black holes.
Actually, I already gave a link to material that completely refutes your crazy ideas! But you probably don’t know how to use Google, otherwise you would cease to constantly carry all kinds of nonsense.

https://www.techlibrary.ru/b/2q1c1a1o1p1c_3m.2v._2y1j1t1n1p1e1j1o1a1n1j1l1a._2007.pdf
(rabinoz - indicated that there is a translation into English.. 

 RHYTHMODYNAMICS, Second edition, revised and extended by Yuri N. Ivanov  RHYTHMODYNAMICS, Second edition, revised and extended by Yuri N. Ivanov)
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #656 on: June 25, 2020, 10:09:32 AM »
Go ahead and explain what "mass" is.

You won't be able to.

No physicist can.

...
See my next message for the direct formula of the weight of a subquark and W = -mg at the quantum level.

but in general I am grateful to you for such nonsense, this is good material for a story about pseudoscience.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #657 on: June 25, 2020, 10:15:08 AM »
The Ellis ether wormhole is a fact of science: the only rotating wormhole which is stable.

Ether vortex model, published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics.

Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

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

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."


Dr. Ellis:

The inertial mass of the particle modeled by the drainhole.  A "Higgsian" way of expressing this idea is to say that the drainhole 'acquires' (inertial) mass from the scalar field.


The Ellis wormhole was rediscovered by Morris and Thorne later in time.

That is why this reference does not include the word "aether" in it; everybody knows what the model of the Ellis-Morris-Thorne ether wormhole stands for.

Now, I have the reference to back up this part of the aether mechanism.

These wormholes have throats on the order of the Planck length:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/350843/files/9803098.pdf (page 12)


Now, imagine the level of ignorance of this statement:

Sure it says that "These wormholes have throats with radii of order of the Planck length, and could
serve as a model for space-time foam".

But you have no justification to claim "this part of the aether mechanism". The paper says no such thing!


The Ellis-Morris-Thorne  wormhole IS an aether wormhole.


Rotating Ellis wormholes create weight.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions

The rotating wormholes attain a finite mass and quadrupole moment.

Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes.


These wormhole must rotate and must be traversable.

This is how an object attains weight.


Not only that but g varies from place to place on the Earth's surface and in space is totally meaningless.
This makes your "mass = density x volume; density = specific weight/g" totally useless.


Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

Then, we have the weight of a subquark/parton/graviton formula derived by three of the top physicists in the world:



(m = W/g)

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

It was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678


I have everything here, the formulas, the papers.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 01:48:19 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7223
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #658 on: June 25, 2020, 11:22:32 AM »
Who proves that "Gravity is described by quantum entanglement Ellis wormholes"? Nobody that I can find.

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement

Entanglement requires traversable wormholes.


*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #659 on: June 25, 2020, 11:35:54 AM »


Universality of Gravity from Entanglement



Well dude you are so - confused everything, that it’s just horror!
The earth believes, because magic exists!