I apologize for my own rudeness; yes, I do need to learn to be a bit more polite to my Christian neighbors. Thank you for pointing out that comment by Jesus (or whatever his actual name might have been; you're probably the first Christian I've heard give any effort at using his real name).

My hostility comes mostly from the fact that I've spent quite a few years arguing with fundies who don't seem to get that half of the crap they say would probably have got Jesus himself going medieval on their asses because their words are insulting to God and humanity both. A lot of times they start out with some laughable moral outrage and then proceed to say some truly ignorant–and annoying–things. I often make the mistake of launching preemptive strikes when I sense something like that coming around.

Since I am not intending to hunt you down and smack you on the cheek, I don't believe this discussion would call for a hand sword. Indeed, even if I did you would have at least four cheeks you could get smacked on before you had to resort to stabbing.

Argument about what Jesus said, in the end, is really rather useless IMHO, because I doubt we would ever agree on what authority his words have, or the accuracy of the record of them.

Peace.

You are a wiser man when you remember Christians are your neighbors and collogues. If you want to quote Jesus please learn what other things He also said such as: “If you don’t own a hand-sword sell your coat and buy one.” You see my friend, He did not intend his disciples to keep turning their cheeks otherwise He wouldn’t have mentioned the little-matter about the hand sword. You see, a man only has two cheeks, if he turns them twice he has proven his peaceful motives and humility. When the blow comes the third time he is well within his right to defend himself even as the Torah allows. Rabbi Yeshua has a lot to teach all of us. Also, Victor, thank you for filling me in about the Google ads. My apology to Universe Today: My moral outrage was misdirected. Peace.

Exactly my point.

"Oops, I 4got, you know they exist but our instruments aren't powerful enough yet to actually detect one."

It's got nothing to do with being powerful enough. You can't detect something that you don't understand well enough to figure out a method of detection!

You can't "see" radio waves, yet they are all around us. How did we discover radio? By accident. How did we discover X-rays? By accident. Yeah, we know a lot more than we did then, but we don't know everything.

Not everything is testable, and it will probably remain that way. That doesn't make it invalid, just that our tests for it are inadequate. Assuming we even had tests, and we don't. But that's our inability and has no reflection on what the state of reality might actually be.

To think that all we know is all there is to reality is quite naive and presumptuous. We learn new things all the time, some unexpected, and that's what science is all about.

Do you realize the ads in question are from the Googlesyndication.com server and are not under the control of Universe Today, and that, indeed, the sponsor of Universe Today would then be Google and not whoever wrote or is marketing that book?

Feel free to take offense if "turning the other cheek" is an article of your faith that you feel doesn't apply to you, but please point it where it belongs and don't pollute this site with your ramblings.

My apologies to you folks at UT for my own rather useless addition here.

Also, given the distances between the top and bottom layer, there would need to be an immense amount of gravity involved in order to maintain structure.

Still the tendency would likely not be to maintain a nice cylindrical column of space between the two layers, but a widening of the lumen space resulting in a very long and deep 'crater' in the fabric of space-time itself.

Lastly, we have to remember the universe is not stateless. It is constantly changing, objects moving, etc. Space time fabric must be expanding and growing. Another problem in maintaining a stable colum to pass through.

What of those 8 or so other dimensions, all smaller than an electron, and what of these wormholes? Are there similarities? Do they extend vastly through galaxies and into the roaring heart of the BigBang? How do they relate to DarkMatter and D-Energy?

One point I wish to make is: a 'consequence of Einstein's theory of general relativity' is a hypothesis based on this theory, and not an actuality. There are no wormholes–not yet. We may now consider what is theorised up until those who have learned declare a revision of reality based on their findings.

While I'm no fan of "runaway math", right now its an important tool in visualizing the things we don't yet have a means to detect.

My web publication at cosmicdarkmatter.com

Gives a hint on the physical limits on the mechanics of gravity.
Einstein reformulated Newton’s gravity in a very elegant geometrical
concept of space time. Others then followed through to find solutions
to his equations taking the arguments to extraordinary extremes and
created objects like black holes, singularities and worm holes etc.

Nobody to date have given any notice to the possibility that nature may
abhors infinities. It makes sense to me that no force of nature is limitless.
I have found the limitations on gravitational force and inertial forces in
a simple concept within the framework of Einstein’s space and matter.

The metaphor being used to describe spacetime curvature is old but not completely unuseful. The solar system model of the atom given to us by Rutherford and modified by Bohr is incorrect but still useful to scientists in chemistry and biology. It just doesn't work in astrophysics and particle physics.

The reality of spacetime curvature can be realized without sheets. Rain drops falling from the roof of an apartment building or a water fall serve a good example. Since they won't reach terminal speed, you will measure the rate at which any two drops separate and you come up with 9.8 meters/sec^2.

Dimensions can be inferred in our particle accelerators if a violation of conservation is realized. Leakage from other dimensions to here would be suggested by a violation with an increase while leakage from here to another would suggest leakage from here to another dimension. Violations in the inverse square law of light in particle accelerator experiments would also suggest leakage.

Just imagine how dangerous it would be going near to the suns surface.
While it would be survivable with the correct equipment, i can't imagine how it would be done with a blackhole, unless we actually do build a FTL drive of some kind, which then defeats the main reason for the wormholes…
But that could still cause problems too, so perhaps a lovely time machine of some sort on board would be nice too =)

Singularities crush everything out of existence & are no place to be if you want to survive.

Theoretically entering a wormhole mouth means exiting your event horizon & your local time. The wormhole will have its own time line which is moving relative to all others . So there would be no way to return to your original time line & or event horizon.
It would be a one way trip however you looked at it.