Wormhole RaindropTheory

[Basic101]

So it rains and raindrops break down when evaporated, then eventually they piece back together but may be containing more or less atoms then they had before. Also they combine with other raindrops. I believe from a bit of research the same thing may happen when going through a Black hole. Now this whole theory is based on alternate universes and when going through a black hole which may or may not be the link; we break down from intense gravity then when and if there is an other side we materialize and may contain or lose parts. An example we may be missing eyes and have one arm but contain rocket fuel instead of blood. But still like a raindrop, we materialize we combine with other raindrops.There is a small percentage of actually surviving but it's really just a theory.This is just a theory feel free to be very critical I love science and am very open minded I'll take notes on all comments.

[ajb]

I believe from a bit of research the same thing may happen when going through a Black hole.

....

 

This is just a theory...

These two statements don't really fit together.

 

How did you come to your "theory"?

[Sato]

These two statements don't really fit together.

 

How did you come to your "theory"?

 

I think his rationale is something along the lines of: "When water droplets are disintegrated, some of the water sticks or is absorbed into the ground, while much of it is able to evaporate upwards to fill the skies/clouds. Rain drops are matter, my conception of the universe is a system of floating matter, and just like the ground (to rain drops), black holes disintegrate matter. From some of the pop-sci I've read, black holes could lead to different universes, and so as I imagine black holes constantly suck up matter and transfer it to different universes, according to the rain drop-ground analogy, some of the matter should stick inside of the black hole while the rest of it gets through. For example, if you send a person through one, some of their limbs might not pass through the black hole (be lost) in the process, just as some particles of the rain drops are not evaporated."

 

This is obviously not a physically accurate connection, as a rain drop does not represent all matter in the universe nor does the ground have such similar properties to a black hole, and the interaction of a rain drop with the ground in a typical environment on Earth is not representative of the interaction of an arbitrary chunk of matter with a black hole. However, I have thought of such incoherent ideas myself, not so much nowadays, but quite often before when my main source of knowledge was pop-sci documentaries and articles. At the time I didn't know better than to think upon seeing a wikipedia article "everything past the intro paragraph has too much jargon I don't understand, that doesn't even link to other wikis, and a bunch of squigly s's (integrals) and backwards 6's (partial deriviatives), this won't be useful" and the idea of a textbook would have never crossed my mind having access to all the Brian Green and Michio Kaku littered across Barnes and Noble.

 

What I am interested in ajb, seeing that you are a formal academic and characteristic of one, is if you had such ideas yourself before receiving your physics degree, or PhD, or so on, before you had actually acquired the knowledge and understanding; did you ever ponder and play with ideas like this before you had the technical ability / confidence to achieve actual results?

 

I am asking because of how you responded here. You posted a quote of two of his statements and noted that they don't really fit together, without elaborating on what the inconsistency actually was. From your following question and your use of quotations around the word theory, I assume the lack of a fit was due to the fact that he first stated what he created as a belief from a bit of research, and later as a theory, which as you know are not the same thing—If that's not it, is there some other reasonable interpretation that I missed?—. However, it is clear from his post that he did not know the disparity in definitions, and so your response seems more like an (addmitedly) clever remark than an attempt to help him, and I certainly don't think that you simply forgot to add more information or accidentally worded it ambiguously. To your question, even if my guess for how he came up with his theory wasn't spot on, I think the idea was pretty clear, and those inconsistencies were too. He opened for criticism on the idea posted, so why didn't you just respond noting those falsely grounded assumptions he made and showing counter examples, explaining where the falsities were? I have attemped to do some of that in this post, but this is really intended as a response directly to you in the discussion.

[ajb]

...did you ever ponder and play with ideas like this before you had the technical ability / confidence to achieve actual results?

Not really, I spent most of my time learning what we do know rather than just playing with ideas like that. Maybe I had a lack of imagination!

 

 

I am asking because of how you responded here...

I take you point that I could have been directly more helpful here.

 

Anyway, lets see what Basic101 says next.

[Sato]

Not really, I spent most of my time learning what we do know rather than just playing with ideas like that. Maybe I had a lack of imagination!

 

 

 

I take you point that I could have been directly more helpful here.

 

Anyway, lets see what Basic101 says next.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with imagination, which I'm not sure is so quantifiable, but maybe that you were just more interested in other things that are not accessible at a layman's level, such as your current work in algebraic geometry (I think that's what it is), and your ability to perform in certain subjects scholastically coincidentally led you towards that area. Of course you might have been being sarcastic there, joking at the common practice of cracks protecting incorrect ideas by declaring that their critics have a lack of imagination.

 

I was also asking because it is possible that those who have had such ideas and grown from there are in much stronger positions to help those who are going through such an experience than otherwise, and so the adapted adage "It takes one [a crackpot] to know [help] one [a crackpot]". Maybe it will require some extra effort from those who have not thought in such a way before.

 

I know you are a very smart, knowledgable, and experienced person ajb (to boot in mathematics/mathematical physics), and have spoken to you before personally and have been helped by you when looking for answers in the physics section, but I was just a bit disappointed when I saw your answer here, and wonder if you respond similarly to all people/questions of this crackpot-y ilk.

[ajb]

...and wonder if you respond similarly to all people/questions of this crackpot-y ilk.

I was hoping that Basic101 could tell us a bit more about how he got to his ideas so that we could possibly prise some physics out of this.

 

Anyway, we are getting off topic.

 

Let us see what Basic101 says next.