If only I could be first to greet a person from another world.
Share ideas on the beauty of such a meeting.

But I guess this will take some time,
I am just certain that someone will do so eventually.

Marcus.

i believe if you reread your link you will find that they are the same.

i didn't read the link

a white hole is an entrance

a black hole is an exit

thus

on the other side of a white hole is a black hole

and

on the other side of a black hole is a white hole

White Holes.

What exactly do you mean?

are you talking about the Rosen Bridge and/or Wormholes?

Marcus

they are both the samething more or less

But do they exist? was more my question.

More to the point

If only we could make them exist.

Marcus

heh, a poetry slam just turned into a disscussion about astrophysics. 

If only I could remember to just shut up sometimes... 

how do you prove a white hole exists from the outside at distance it would look like any other star

I think this is a white theory.
But hell. we always have belief.


marcus

OK, do any theoretical quantum or string theorists acknowledge any sort of "white hole"

Ie the fact that you can travel through a quantum singularity. I doubt it.

marcus

this is truly pseudo science

no, they are not the same, but under the theories they are closely connected. the biggest difference off the bat is that we've got some pretty good evidence that black holes exist, but none whatsoever for white holes.



this isn't pseudo science in the same way UFOlogy is. it's scientific speculation. it's a result of experts looking at their solid, empirical work and trying to fill in conceptual gaps. the difference is that some pimpley guy with a video camera calling himself a UFOlogist typically doesn't have the slightest bit of training in scientific method or philosophy.

also, any theoretical physicist working today will awknowledge white holes. they will acknowledge them as something that exists in math, but probably doesn't exist in reality (source).

of course, i think if only i could live for the next 10,000 years, i'd be gleeful at seeing how often our "best science" was proven wrong and incomplete. so who knows, maybe it's just the case that white holes aren't possible in our universe.

I deliberately used the term pseudo science as a misnomer.
Try not to misinterpret my thinking.

Marcus

Despite the differences, there is always the possibility of anyone making a new discovery, no matter who you are.

In history, it is often the most unlikely people who make the biggest discoveries, yet still we refuse to learn from this and tend to rely on the people with the biggest scientific resume's.

cash is better than science

what if I made a discovery that will Irradicate cancer over night.
Can I give it to the world or will some government force me into accepting 1oo Billion Dollars? or most likely will some drug company kill me so they can keep making 25 billion a year.


PS, be honest, my arse would be in a swamp

Marcus

PS I mean this. I would be terrified for my life.
If i worked for a major drug company even worse.

Go on . please tell me they wouldn't kill to protect a few billion dollars in profits.

if only i could cure cancer and run, far far away

If only

Perhaps if the drug company was owned by organised crime gang then yes,,,, otherwise there isn't really anyone in charge who can order an asasination, since the stock exchange has already assasinated the concept of a 'boss'.

I think you got it backwards. A black hole pulls in, while a white hole shoots out.

what i meant was a black hole exits this universe

and a white hole is an entrance into this universe

Its not a question of a 'man' giving an order. There's always board meetings (point 4 on the agenda - do we kill MarcusCardiff before he releases his cancer cure?) or those dastardly shareholders demanding higher profits...

hehehe yea, but board members being the back stabbing basteds they are will not commit any serious crimes (crimes that are so serious that they cannot be hidden in their lawyers fog of war) in fear of being blackmailed by the next power hungry board member.

i do try my best: if you want to avoid being misintrepreted, you shouldn't write ironically.



ah, the myth of the heroic scientist. unfortunately, many historians of science consider it a myth. most discoveries occur as the result of an accumulation of knowledge reaching a kind of critical mass. the individual isn't too important to the equation (the reason calculus was developed twice and why quantum field theory doesn't have a single founder the way relativity does). don't get me wrong. Einstein, Curie, Darwin, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo (I'd even include Marx, Smith and Locke): they were certainly geniuses. and some discoveries are definately a matter of luck. but the development of radical new theories in the sciences usually occurs as the result of an accumulation of evidence that conflicts the existing models. ref: wikipedia article on the work of Thomas Kuhn.

That is fairly obvious, i mean you have to learn to walk before you can run kind of thing. A person who makes a scientific descovery will probably know allot about the subject, but such knowledge is not exclusive to people with scientific degrees.

oh, you're certainly correct there. your previous message left me with the impression that you suggested most discoveries are complete accident (as if Newton was just some average joe until his famous encounter with the apple - he was a thinker as a youth and a scientist throughout his life).

indeed, credentials don't necessarily mean a lot (for discovery anyway, they still mean plent to the scientist in question). if anything, younger scientists lacking in credentials can make major discoveries because their thought habits haven't been entrenched in one specific model for their entire careers - though, i might modify this by saying young scinetists gain insights, rather than make discoveries, which they subsequently spend half a lifetime fleshing out into a full-blown theory and discovery (it did take Newton 20 years after the apple to come up with gravity, IIRC).

Spot on! I would also add that the way the brain develops in early childhood to create a person with a natural interest in science is worth 100 or more university degrees!

So basically you would need 100 scientists with no talent to keep up with 1 scientist who does.

But the way the apple is use is considered myth...