- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Higher order non-human intelligence directing these UAPs
Posted on 5/15/26 at 12:58 pm to imjustafatkid
Posted on 5/15/26 at 12:58 pm to imjustafatkid
Yes, really.
0
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:15 pm to AlterEd
quote:So we're already eliminating your very last post that said time travel lol.
They are simply shortcuts through space, not time.
quote:I'll try to clarify for the 4th time. Traveling back and forth through a wormhole is possible in the abstract. In practice, it creates a paradox because a wormhole in general relativity is not just a tunnel through space; it's a shortcut through spacetime, meaning space and time together. Physics doesn't allow for paradoxes to exist.
At the end of the day, you said that moving vast distances through the universe is not possible. That is the post I took contention with. You later said you granted it as true. So I'm honestly not sure why you're still arguing this. You were incorrect and no matter how many times you try to say it you are still incorrect.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:26 pm to theballguy
quote:What if they were a million years ahead of us but also died out a billion years ago? It's not just whether they could get here, it's also if they exist contemporaneously with us. That's another 1 in 10000 chance they exist at the same time. And that is spread out over the vastness of the universe.
This is a good point. But what if in their evolution they are even just a million years ahead of us
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:41 pm to StrongOffer
It doesn't matter how many times you try to say it, it is still wrong. Spatial wormholes do not create paradoxes. As already explained, spatial wormholes (Morris-Thorne wormhole) avoids any paradoxes because in our 4d reality every object follows its own worldline (relativity). Creating a bridge between two distant points in the universe doesn't effect the object's worldline that passes through them. The craft doesn't exceed the speed of light and doesn't move backwards in time. No paradox. Causality is preserved.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:53 pm to AlterEd
quote:Well Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and most modern experts on the topic don't agree with you.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to say it, it is still wrong. Spatial wormholes do not create paradoxes. As already explained, spatial wormholes (Morris-Thorne wormhole) avoids any paradoxes because in our 4d reality every object follows its own worldline (relativity). Creating a bridge between two distant points in the universe doesn't effect the object's worldline that passes through them. The craft doesn't exceed the speed of light and doesn't move backwards in time. No paradox. Causality is preserved.
"Einstein recognized that relativity allowed bridge-like spacetime structures mathematically, but he did not consider them practical mechanisms for space travel."
Stephen Hawking’s “Chronology Protection Conjecture,” which argues that quantum effects would destabilize spacetime before a usable time machine could form. Calculations suggest that vacuum fluctuations near a time-travel wormhole could grow without bound and destroy the wormhole throat.
Traversable wormholes create causality problems. Once a wormhole exists, moving one mouth relative to the other using relativistic motion would turn the wormhole into a time machine. This creates the possibility of closed timelike curves, where an event could influence its own past. Such configurations lead to paradoxes like the grandfather paradox or Joseph Polchinski’s billiard-ball paradox. Many physicists consider this a sign that the solution is mathematically interesting but physically unrealizable.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:53 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Only if everything we know about physics is incorrect.
Ask Eric Weinstein about that...
They stopped doing real physics when they started only funding string theory. It was a dead end.
What we know about physics publicly is diddly squat. We can't even tell you what Dark Matter / Energy is and that's 95% of the whole universe. We've based our physics off of just 5% of the universe that we can interact with but we sure do act confident we're the smartest thing in the universe.
We're infants. We can't even tell you what consciousness is and that's basically the most important thing about us.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:56 pm to theballguy
The fact that they keep dangling this shiny object makes you wonder what they’re actually doing while we’re distracted
Posted on 5/15/26 at 2:58 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:We know what consciousness is. People who want God to not be real don't want to accept the evidence that we are more than something that can be boiled down to physical science.
We can't even tell you what consciousness is and that's basically the most important thing about us.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:26 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
We know what consciousness is.
Wrong again. This is becoming a theme with you.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:28 pm to AlterEd
quote:Nice rebuttal. You’re a genius.
Wrong again.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:30 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Nice rebuttal.
No need to rebut it. You said we know what it is and didn't say anything beyond that. If you want the discussion to progress you need to back up your claim. Tell us what it is. "Genius".
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:33 pm to StrongOffer
Man, I think people will argue over damn near anything.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:35 pm to theballguy
quote:
Man, I think people will argue over damn near anything.
Let's just put it this way. If this anonymous person on the internet can explain what consciousness is fully there is a nobel prize in it for him.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:36 pm to AlterEd
quote:You couldn’t even grasp the concept of spacetime travel. I’m not getting into another drawn-out debate on a topic you can’t grasp. The lawnmower I’m about to start up can understand logic better than you. Have a good day.
No need to rebut it. You said we know what it is and didn't say anything beyond that. If you want the discussion to progress you need to back up your claim. Tell us what it is. "Genius".
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:38 pm to StrongOffer
In other words, you can't back your claim.
Wrong here too.
quote:
You couldn’t even grasp the concept of spacetime travel.
Wrong here too.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:47 pm to Rip Torner
You consistently show you don’t even have a basic understanding of physics.
Nothing with any mass at all can travel at the speed of light. Period. Not even a cell. But let’s pretend it can.
You confuse speed and acceleration. Traveling at the speed of light…or near the speed of light at a constant speed imparts zero force. The acceleration to get to the speed of light is a different story.
If they’re traveling at the speed of light they can get anywhere in the universe instantaneously. Literally 0 seconds. Obviously this is nonsensical, but at a crawling 0.99 c it only takes about 7 months to travel 4 light years. I realize most Louisianans would need 4 years worth of rations to survive the trip, but that’s beside the point.
quote:
Nothing above the size of a cell and even that is highly debatable can travel at the speed of light.
Nothing with any mass at all can travel at the speed of light. Period. Not even a cell. But let’s pretend it can.
quote:
Even IF a singular life form could travel at the speed of light momentarily, it couldn’t withstand it for four straight years. That is organically impossible and could not withstand that amount of force.
You confuse speed and acceleration. Traveling at the speed of light…or near the speed of light at a constant speed imparts zero force. The acceleration to get to the speed of light is a different story.
quote:
Not to mention a food source for four years and just to pop in and say hi lol.
If they’re traveling at the speed of light they can get anywhere in the universe instantaneously. Literally 0 seconds. Obviously this is nonsensical, but at a crawling 0.99 c it only takes about 7 months to travel 4 light years. I realize most Louisianans would need 4 years worth of rations to survive the trip, but that’s beside the point.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 3:50 pm to AlterEd
quote:Nope, just lost the patience holding your hand through nuanced discussions.
In other words, you can't back your claim.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 4:39 pm to StrongOffer
So, no release or anything new this week?
Posted on 5/15/26 at 4:59 pm to jchamil
quote:
So, no release or anything new this week?
Don't think so. Initially they said it would be weekly and now they're saying every couple weeks. Looks like we are getting 40 new videos next week. Anna Paulina Luna said she finished viewing them all a couple hours ago.
Posted on 5/15/26 at 5:27 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Traversable wormholes create causality problems. Once a wormhole exists, moving one mouth relative to the other using relativistic motion would turn the wormhole into a time machine.
PDF to Morris Thorne, Wormholes in Spacetime and Their Use For Interstellar Space Travel: a tool for teaching general relativity
This paper was published in the American Journal of Physics, vol. 56, issue #5. It introduced the Morris-Thorne wormhole metric, it describes spherically symmetric, traversable wormholes that connect two distant regions of space at the same time and the paper discusses how to keep the wormhole open using exotic matter.
It also discusses how one could turn the wormhole into a time machine. It gives both scenarios.
This post was edited on 5/15/26 at 5:37 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News