21 Comments

  1. If its disclosure then its old news, this is the general concept of wormholes they’ve been showing us for decades where a wormhole merges two distant points of space, nothing new.

  2. partime_prophet on

    Can we have scientists in office . Like actually brainiac smart people . Instead we have someone who never took a physics class tweeting pics of theoretical quantum ideas. With zero context. How do their conspiratorial/ faith based voters respond to this . This isn’t good

  3. Joeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyy on

    So first we have to bend space. No biggie. We can’t even power are data centers. Lmao

  4. It’s Luna and wormholes are very much a real theory since Einstein, how you would aim one to a specific location in space isn’t but sure why not, when speculating on NHI thousands to billions of years more advanced anythings on the table but it’s Luna (Not a theoretical physicist or scientist of any measure). The scientist like Puthoff and Davis talk more along the lines of the Alcubierre drive which is a spacetime bubble and totally different who I’m more likely to believe if we are talking interstellar travel.

  5. south-of-the-river on

    The most sensitive topic in history being toyed with by the most criminally inept people imaginable

  6. Horror_Business_7099 on

    She’s the one that wanted to go behind reviewing documents and actually interview all the doctors and witnesses of the JFK assassination.

    You know, forgetting they are all dead.

    She is a genius.

  7. Embarrassed_Camp_291 on

    Although wormholes are a real solution to the Einstein equations of GR, they are just that; a solution.

    There’s no physical mechanism that we know of that may create one, how we would control one, how you keep it open or how you pass through one.

    What they are is simply a fallout of the maths. It’s literally just that the equations allow closed loops.

    In this sense, they are analogous to white holes (not physically but how they come about mathematically). For a non-rotating, uncharged black hole, it’s spacetime can be described by a Schwarzschild metric. However, in this coordinate system, you cannot cross the event horizon (you asymptote as you get closer). If you transform into a hyperbolic coordinate system, Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, you can cross the event horizon. But, this also creates a region of space time seperate to yours and within it, something with which noting can enter termed a “white hole”. What this means physically is unknown and much of what you’ll see is pure speculation and not motivated by science (literally, unless you are a very advanced theoretical GR researcher, you wont be seeing anything with much weight). Theres no evidence they do or should or can exist except they pop out of the maths.

    Now, in a somewhat (maybe not quite) similar sense, until we were able to indirectly detect gravitational waves with pulsar timing arrays, and then directly in 2015 with laser interferometers such as LIGO, VIRGO and KAGRA, GWs were also a fallout of the maths; The equations allow wave solutions. There was more evidence for this however with processes like GW decay of inspiraling binaries being a valid mechanism of mergers. It’s maybe a poor example, but someone’s bound to mention it.

    On a side note, graphics like this, while interesting visualisations, are not particularly useful and a little misleading. They have effectively condensed 4 dimensions into 2, massively oversimplifying (and neglecting) a lot of the physics. This is not an adequate representation of what is going in reality.

  8. Things are either about to get very interesting, or she’s about to look like one of the biggest fools…. or, essentially nothing will happen and things will go on as they have been (“nothing ever happens” philosophy). I don’t know what to expect.