Is this true?

Scientific fact you say... I have been teached that it's just a theory and haven't heard of any. Also anything with so much mass that it would allow travelling to other galaxies in usefully shortwer time would turn into blackhole in no time. So correct me if I'm wrong but thre aren't any known wormholes and their existence is not a scientific fact.

>teached

Do you seriously expect me to take your paragraph produced by an intellectually inferior brain seriously you mere brainlet?

it's just another case of theoretical drivel coined by a divide by zero error
there's no reason to believe that the spacetime compressed in a black hole leads to anywhere other than right where it is, but it's more fun if we project that they do

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

How are you supposed to explain something that doesn't make sense?

youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw

youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=19m

Wow, didn't you guys watch that documentary with the redneck guy who saved the human race? He traveled through a black hole and ghosts live in the 4th demension.

>It is scientific fact that they do, in fact, exist.

actually no, it isn't. Wormholes are a thing that might happen but there is no evidence they do happen.

This. Wormholes are possible by our current laws of physics in the same manner space elevators are, but that doesn't mean they are naturally occurring or already exist.

...

But it is completely incorrect and completely fantasy. You may as well teach about fairies.

>Literally religion

How would the two layers actually be pierced to allow the hole though?

The pencil in the folded paper analogy.

>explanation for wormholes?
You only have to explain things that exist.
That's the most basic part of science, observation leads to hypothesis, not the other way around.

>what is entanglement
Sure, let's use something we don't understand yet to explain something we've never observed.

Data is unintelligible without a preexisting theory of model to fit the data into.

"just a theory"?

Surely you meant to say, "just a hypothesis".

After all, you should know that a theory is a well documented or supported idea that has stood up to some experiments and observational tests.

That's Ironic from a guy using terms like "miraculously" and "impossible" just to fit into a discussion beyond his comprehension.

this is fine as an analogy.
Nobody, not even you, can imagine a hole through 4 dimensional spacetime

>Data is unintelligible
We don't have any data on wormholes, we've never observed one.

>preexisting theory of model to fit the data into.
That's completely backwards. The whole idea of scientific method is that you start with observation, then develop a hypothesis.

>Ironic from a guy using terms like "miraculously" and "impossible" just to fit into a discussion beyond his comprehension.
You're confusing me with a different user. I didn't use those terms in this thread.
But never mind that... Someone on the 4chins used "ironic" correctly, and didn't confuse it with "facetious".
I'd hug you if I could. Here, have a gold star.

The data consists of postulations about theoretical entities, and typically this data is already embedded in current theories.

The raw data of experience has no structure until we give it structure. "the fundamental concepts and postulates of physics [being] in the logical sense free inventions of the human mind, [they could nowise] be deduced from experience by 'abstraction' -- that is to say by logical means." - Einstein.

And the same laws also say that even if they do exist they ate absolutely useless because it would mean you had to get out of the event horizon at the other end.

I once heard someone who knows more about GR say you can't change the topology of space, so no opening new holes.

I think the implications of a failed wormhole are really cool. What happens is that it turns into a double sided slingshot as the pinched space releases its stored elastic energy. Massive, solar system destroying explosions happen at each end.

>The data consists of postulations about theoretical entities
That's guesswork, not data.

And Einstein was fond of the notion that you could create many different useful models based on observed data, and we should pick a particular model that was convenient to work with, but his ideas still involved starting with observations, not conclusions, despite his fondness for thought experiments.
For instance, his version of the train-and-lightning based gedankenexperiment on simultaneity still relies on the Michelson–Morley experiment for the basis of light traveling at a constant speed relative to all relativistic frames of reference.

So the evolution theory is bullshit and not be taught because no one can prove how life it self came to exist?

This simply isn't true.

There is no real "simple" explanation when it comes to space-time phenomena, if you want to understand it you have to get into the math, no way around it.
But yes, if you really want to compare the fabric of space-time to a flimsy piece of paper then go for it.

Theres no such thing as "portals."

Wormholes theoretically exist, but at the largest scale possible in physics that dont use literally stellar scales of power to generate they exist for a few nano seconds and are capable of MAYBE moving a few neutrinos to god knows where. This happens when some high energy particles hit eachother hard enough.

The other way to do it is to collapse entire stars worth of matter and energy into one infiniteley dense point in space and time to rip the universe a new one.

Unfortunatley such singularities are still only capable of moving elemental particles since theyre fuckin black holes and the sheer amount of radiation and gravitic forces exherted on anything trying to go into one rends it apart down to atoms before it can pass through it. Possibly into another universe.

This is STILL only a theory, since that implies somewhere theres white holes spewing massive volumes of radiation, gravity, and particles from another universe outward just as powerfully as black holes pull inward (literal opposite of a black hole, a spot with repulsion so powerful not even light can enter.) Except we havent actually found one yet so its still 100% theoretical.

So your "portals" are limited by the current physical model to moving subatomic particles in a 100% unpredictable manner, or being literally impossible to enter. (Technically you can enter a black hole, it will just be as a couple hundred pounds of carbon and hydrogen atoms.)

So stop spouting your discovery channel/scifi show nonsense. Theres no such thing as "portals." Singularities exist either on cosmic scales or for almost imperceptible periods of time at scales so small even larger quauntum particles cant fit through them.

Actually its very very easy.

>Take a water balloon.
>push two fingers together from opposite sides until they touch in the middle
>youve just simulated a tunnel through 3 dimensions. (Width, height, length)
>now imagine it takes time to move through it
>boom. 4 dimensions.

Humans naturally view the universe in 4 dimensions. The problem is dealing with the other 7 or so they think exist outside our perceptions.

(Somebody up to date on their reading feel free to correct me but I think last count there were the 4 regular ones we see every day and 7 theoretical ones mathematical models predict)

The implications of creating a wormhole are solar system shattering anyways since you need to collapse about that much matter or its conversion to energy equivalent onto one point to do it.

it's in fact your bunghole