Re: SCI: existance -vs- non-existance

From: michael k teehan (miketeehan@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu Dec 04 1997 - 04:59:23 MST


PLEASE CHANGE MY ADDRESS TO ROMMO@AOL.COM

----------
> From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Subject: Re: SCI: existance -vs- non-existance
> Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 5:03 AM
>
> Ian Camilleri <ian.camilleri@utoronto.ca> writes:
>
> > If it takes a large gravity well to create a wormhole, or in effect, a
> > black hole or singularity, how would it be possible to traverse?
Anything
> > like a black hole would tear you to shreads and crunch you into
infinitly
> > dense particles.
>
> Wormholes may have this problem, the jury is still out on that. The
> energy densities and space-time curvatures involved in wormholes are
> comparable to black holes (but "negative" in some sense), and there
> are many wormhole models that are not traversable at all since they
> collapse, have infinite blueshifts and other nastiness. But on the
> other hand, just as very large black holes would have fairly weak
> tidal forces at their event horizons, traversable wormholes with
> sufficiently large throats might be survivable.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
> asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
> GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:11 MST