Dear Peter van Gaalen,

You write: 'But do you have any justification for that continuous spacetime can't exist?'

Yes, I have a very important justification for that continuous spacetime can't exist: 1) The Universe is expanding; In the first microseconds of expansion the Universe was very small and therefore finite in volume. In spite of expansion, the Universe will have the finite volume always. Since the Universe has a finite volume, it must have the edges (holes), because all objects with finite volumes have borders. And the space with holes is discontinuous. Thus, since the Universe is expanding, therefore it must be finite and discontinuous.

2) The fluctuation of distance between two bodies is a proof that spacetime is discrete, because it has the only explanation: the spatial atoms appear and disappear continually, forming holes, therefore the distance between two bodies fluctuates, because the hole does not have extent.

- ''Do you mean a spacetime atom as an object with different kinds of properties such as a discrete length? In what sense is it different from material atoms?''

The theory of spatial atoms is too long to fit in my essay because the essays size was limited by 25000 characters. On the other hand, the page for discussions is not a suitable place for publication of the theory of spatial atoms. Hence, after publication of this theory in the Journals, I'll inform you about. Therefore, now I can explain you in short only. Both spatial and matter atoms are physical objects having the extent, lifetime and other properties.

- ''But what is your mathematical justification for non-traversable "tunnels"?''

Wormholes have a mathematical justification because they really exist, it is a curvature of spacetime or Einstein-Rosen bridge. Wormholes have the 'throat' and mounts. Conversely, holes do not have throat and mounts; it is neither the Einstein-Rosen Bridge nor topological entity. Holes are nonmaterial objects; particles can jump over holes using Hole Teleportation only. Therefore, since the ''tunnel'' (hole) do not have extent, throat and mounts, we have nothing to describe mathematically. It is not a tunnel like wormhole. A shortcut between different regions of spacetime appears because all particles are suspended in the absolute void (hole). Therefore they can ''communicate'' through the hole using hole teleportation. Can you describe nothing mathematically?

Is your opinion different from quantum mechanics? My theory describes quantum mechanical phenomena (physically).

- ''And what do you think about probability waves that are continuous physical phenomena?''

In my theory a particle propagates as a cloud of teleportation events and there is a probability of finding the particle in a region. If the wave packet can be described MATHEMATICALLY as an infinite set of component sinusoidal waves, it does not means that they really are sinusoidal (continuous) waves.

- ''Are the media that wave continuous or discrete?''

All waves propagate in the discrete media only, for example the sound waves propagate in the air, metal or water; however all these media are discrete, consisting of atoms, molecules, particles. In the same way, spacetime also must be discrete. Can you find an example where a wave propagates in continuous media?

Friendly Regards,

Constantin

Dear Constantin,

Indeed, The Official Statement of Modern Science is wrong, one reason being that the speed of light isn't a velocity, so a black hole has no event horizon. The belief that there's a singularity at the center follows from the false assumption that the mass of particles is an absolute, objective quantity, that is, only the source, and not also the product of their interactions. 'Singularities' and 'black holes' are the product of our addiction to fairy tales and use their lingo. This is why in my essay I speak about 'black-hole like' objects. Modern science doesn't 'affirm that black holes really exist', only that there exist very heavy, compact objects. As to 'seen from deep inside the hole's field, we, our world doesn't exist': that doesn't mean that we would see nothing. The speed of light is just a property of spacetime (see the UPDATE 2 post at my thread about Time. This post also touches upon the subject of quantum teleportation, EPR experiments). Though a photon indeed bridges the spaceTIME distance between its source and receiver in no time at all, an observer does measure a time equal to their distance. Whereas in this sense a photon transmission is instantaneous, this is impossible for massive particles. If they express and preserve their mass by exchanging energy, then displacing a mass would affect the energy of the objects it was anchored to in its original location, as well as that of its new neighbors after the displacement. Another problem is how you can instruct the particle to end up where you want it except by accelerating it.

Regards, Anton

Dear Anton,

I gave you an example of Black Hole singularity from Wikipedia in order to show you that black holes and vacuum holes are very similar. However, since you do not accept the statements of modern science about Black Hole singularity, therefore I'll prove my point of view without using Black Holes.

Thus, your first question was 'Well, if there's nothing outside the universe, then as 'seen' from the outside, the universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality'.

You cannot exist outside of the Universe because a hole does not have the extension (length) and time, therefore it can not contain your body; therefore you cannot inspect the Universe from the outside and you cannot see the Universe from the outside because the light is not able to propagate outside of the Universe. An observer who physically is a part of the Universe and exist inside of the Universe can see the Universe only. You see, there is a good answer without involving Black Holes.

We can prove the reality of vacuum holes theoretically and experimentally. Theoretically: vacuum holes are the necessary elements of nature because they can explain quantum phenomena, gravitation, and teleportation. We can prove the existence of holes experimentally by using two atomic clocks: since holes do not have extent and time, therefore near the source of holes must appear time dilation and length contraction effects. Thus we must place first clocks near the source of holes and another control clocks aside. If the first clock tics slower, it is the proof that holes really exist.

You write: - ''This post also touches upon the subject of quantum teleportation, EPR experiments). Though a photon indeed bridges the spaceTIME distance between its source and receiver in no time at all, an observer does measure a time equal to their distance. Whereas in this sense a photon transmission is instantaneous, this is impossible for massive particles''

Quantum Teleportation is not instantaneous and transmits quantum state only, but not photons or energy.

Then, probably you write about Hole Teleportation: ''If they express and preserve their mass by exchanging energy, then displacing a mass would affect the energy of the objects it was anchored to in its original location, as well as that of its new neighbors after the displacement''.

Hole Teleportation is the instantaneous exchange of identical volumes. The original and finish volume/place must be absolutely identical respect to external force fields, therefore it cannot affect the energy of the object. Despite of displacement, the object interacts continually with environment because teleportation is instantaneous.

- ''Another problem is how you can instruct the particle to end up where you want it except by accelerating it''.

We cannot instruct the particle to end up where we want. At HT, when we delete the quantum memory, a particle appears at random in the Universe.

Sincerely,

Constantin

6 days later

Dear Anton,

Probably you mean the ''Black Holes'' by the word ''holes'', since I don't found any mention about my vacuum holes in your thread. There is a considerable difference between the orthodox notion of the Black Holes and my vacuum holes.

You wrote in this post ''the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime''.

By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.

I can add another flaw in the Black Hole theory: according to the theory, the magnetic field is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. Since the light (virtual photons) cannot escape from a black hole, therefore the Black Holes cannot have the magnetic fields.

Sincerely,

Constantin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #14

Dear Constantin and Anton,

On Feb 14 in this thread, I gave the analogy that Constantin's quantum hole and a black hole "singularity" may both be lattice defects in the very fabric of spacetime. I think they may be related - if not identical. Of course, Constantin's primary purpose is to make a case for a type of interstellar travel that apparently defies relativity, and not to explain the "stability" of black holes. Nonetheless, it would be cool if these ideas are related. In later runs, the LHC may try to produce mini black holes. What if these phenomena reinforce Constantin's idea?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

According to the theory, the lattice defects and topological defects seem to have the totally different properties in comparison with the holes in spacetime. However, the holes in spacetime may be similar to the Black Holes. In other words, I hope that Black Holes are the large holes in spacetime. It is in agreement with the fact that both Black Hole and vacuum hole cannot have the magnetic fields, most likely they are the same objects.

According to hole theory of gravitation, the LHC produce holes in spacetime and we can prove it by using the atomic clocks. Also I want to use LHC for experimental Hole Teleportation but I need access to equipment and information. We can teleport particles, nuclei or atoms up to distance of some light years by using particle accelerators.

Regards,

Constantin

Dear Leshan,

''By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.''

We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to objects if and when it interacts with them as it moves. Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves. This is why to the photon itself its transmission is instantaneous: it bridges a spacetime distance in no time at all even though an observer measures a time equal to that space distance. (All interactions the photon is supposed to be involved in as travels, all Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions with virtual electrons, positrons and photons, are actually taken care off at the photon source and receiver.) The idea of a photon as some kind of bullet buzzing from a light source to some random target across spacetime is a classical notion of what in actually is a purely quantum mechanic phenomenon. Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock.

If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon. (That is, unless B after absorbing the photon sends back a message to A to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note saying that A can from this moment start to see B in its new state). Whereas according to A and B the transmission is instantaneous, having no mass, to the photon there's no space nor time distance between A and B so to the photon its transmission also is instantaneous. Since to a massive observer A and B are separated in space and thus in time, he measures a transmission time equal to their distance. So if there's no time, no clock outside the universe to determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, then we cannot say that either A or B is the cause of the transmission, which is a requisite to be able to speak about a velocity. We can, therefore, only speak about a velocity if it is smaller than c. The difference is that at velocities < c, a bullet may miss the intended target, whereas at the 'speed' of light, the bullet only can be shot if and when it hits the target. For a photon to be emitted, transmitted requires the cooperation of the receiver, so quantum mechanics at heart is non-causal, which is why it seems so strange. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which by definition cannot be understood, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. More over time and causality you can find in my UPDATE 2 post above (Feb. 8).

Regards, Anton

    Dear Anton,

    We can speak about the velocity of the photon with respect to its source and receiver. For example, if the photons were emitted by a star and then hit our detector, then we can speak about the velocity of the photons with respect to the source star and detector.

    You wrote: ''Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves''.

    The photon has ENERGY, and therefore it curves the spacetime, according to GR. Therefore, a beam of photons curve the spacetime and interacts gravitationally with the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move. You see during a solar eclipse that the stars along the same line of sight as the Sun are shifted. It is because the light from the star behind the Sun is bent toward the Sun and the Earth.

    You wrote: ''Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock''.

    1) There is neither matter nor clocks outside of the Universe. 2) You try to introduce the Absolute Time measured by God-like clocks placed outside of the Universe. Remember, the Universe has no Absolute Time, no absolute frame of reference, and no absolute space. All is relative.

    You wrote:''If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B'' - if you describe the EPR paradox then this description is not correct; Also, Quantum teleportation transmits quantum state only but not photons or energy, and this teleportation is not instantaneous. The initial photon is destroyed and then is recreated in the finish place. It is not the transmission of photon but of quantum state only.

    There are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics, in consequence of its inability to provide descriptions of the causes of all actually observed effects.

    Sincerely,

    Constantin

    Constantin

    I noted your comments on the leading essay. If you've read mine you'll be aware of my belief that content, with reality, logic and falsifiability, is indeed my priority. I agree our leader does not lead with those, but feel it's value is still beyond simple entertainment, reminding us of a particular scientific approach we'd do well to remember.

    I read your essay and couldn't find falsifiability in your main premise, which is not consistent with the significant evidence and logic my own theory uses, which is all consistent with a discontinuous continuum, at 2.7 degrees always in the local (last scattering) rest frame of the CMB. From this I derive CSL, which removes the need for Einstein's original 'denial' of the 'ethers' influence on EM signal propagation. (though he confirmed "space without ether is unthinkable".

    None the less I found your essay well written and, considering your task, the point as well argued as it could have been. This alone makes it worth a good score, and better than it's place suggests. Yet I think you need to read such as Ken Wharton or you may end up blinkered and resentful. I hope you've also read or will read mine, and with an open and fully switched on mind as it will test your conceptual abilities.

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Dear Peter,

      Since my theory is based on Democritus ideas, I must remind some of his words: Democritus had said that questions of truth could not be decided by a majority vote. History abounds in cases where only one person was in possession of true knowledge in a certain field while all the rest were mistaken. Therefore I have doubts about the ''leading essay'' selected by a majority vote. In my view, this essay only has artistic value, but no scientific value, since it is filled with generally known Physics' information copied from textbooks and Internet.

      Sincerely,

      Constantin

      Dear Constantin,

      As to the eclipse, it is not light which bends around the Sun but spacetime itself which is curved and affects the physical relation between the distant star and the observer. To the photon itself, its path would be perfectly straight if not for the fact that to the photon there is no path, no spacetime distance between the points it is transmitted. If to the photon itself it doesn't interact as it is transmitted, then we cannot insist that it does. Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event. If A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon. Though to us the moment when A sees B change and when B sees A change don't coincide in time, it nevertheless it is a single event taking no time at all. To A its own change doesn't precede that of B, nor sees B change itself before or after it sees A change. Only if we assume that there is a God-Clock, an Absolute Time we can determine in an absolute sense what precedes what, is cause of what, and only then can we interpret the speed of light as a velocity. Without such a clock it is just a property of spacetime, how many meters correspond to how many seconds. In my essay I have repeatedly emphasized that there is no such clock.

      As to a photon curving spacetime: according to GR energy only is a source of gravity if and when it can be assigned a position, like I argued in my essay: the energy of a (massive) particle likewise depends on the definiteness in its position. Since the speed of light can be defined as that 'velocity' at which the position of a particle is completely indefinite so it cannot express its energy in interactions, act upon anything, a photon cannot curve spacetime. Another reason why photons cannot, should not interact, is that for photons to be able to transmit force between two particles, they must be impervious to influences which may affect that force, which is why it has no mass, why it isn't delayed by interactions as goes about its business, why it has the 'speed' of light. We should reserve the term 'velocity' for motions proceeding at v < c, for classical situations where causally applies. Though we can describe the propagation of light as if it has a velocity, we should keep in mind that it is a non-causal QM phenomenon. Spacetime is curved by mass, by the continuous energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve each other's energy, not by photons. This, by the way, is not to say that we cannot predict where and when we can intercept a photon, that is, make the source produce photons for our detector. We should not think about photons as some kind of bullets buzzing through spacetime, as if the state of the source particles can change before that of the absorbing particles, 'before' according to the God-Clock. Unfortunately causality itself cannot exist without such clock, so if we reject Absolute Time (as we must if we are to practice physics instead of metaphysics), then we should discard causality. Though events certainly are related, we shouldn't waste time on irrelevant questions as to what is cause of what. So to say that ''there are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics'' seems to me a gross understatement. I'm well aware that what I propose is completely different from the present consensus about what photons are, so I can imagine your confusion.

      I do not describe the EPR paradox with the above AB sketch. In an EPR experiment (like those of Anton Zeilinger) which entangles two photons, the light source (the particles to emit the photons) at all times is informed about the direction of the polarisation filter in the detector as it continuously exchanges energy with all particles of the setup. So if the source keeps producing pairs of entangled photons, then any photon with the right polarisation to pass the detector filter and be detected is produced together with a photon with the opposite polarisation. As the information about the detector already is present at the source at the time of the emission, there's no need for signals traveling instantaneously from the detector to the other photon which then is thought to assume the appropriate polarisation. It already is produced at the source with that polarisation, so no info is transmitted faster than light and there's no teleportation of Q states. The idea of teleportation originates in the belief that there is a God Clock, in the outdated, 19th century idea that speed of light is a velocity.

      Regards, Anton

        Dear Anton,

        The main error in your AB sketch is following: you mistakenly use the photon's frame of reference everywhere. It is true that the photon does not age, for a photon the time is frozen. However, you describe your experiment as if you are a photon: ''Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event''. Yes, for a photon time is frozen, but not for you. You are an observer who exist in a real spacetime and feel the time. Therefore for you the emission of photon, its voyage and its absorption is not a single event. Even if the time for photon is frozen, it travels the distance ct during the time t for YOU. Thus, your main mistake in this experiment is that you are in a photon's reference frame; Please try to imagine that you are the real Observer who exist, feel time an observe photons and all your paradoxes disappear at once. Therefore, all your next reasoning in this experiment also is mistaken because you imagine as if you are a photon.

        ''according to GR energy only is a source of gravity if and when it can be assigned a position'',''the energy of a (massive) particle likewise depends on the definiteness in its position''

        This definition is your own invention, and it is wrong invention. According to your definition even massive particles cannot be the sources of gravity since their positions are not definite, according to Heisenberg.

        ''a photon cannot curve spacetime'' - it contradicts GR; the beam of light bends spacetime. The curvature is caused by the energy-momentum of matter.

        ''Though we can describe the propagation of light as if it has a velocity, we should keep in mind that it is a non-causal QM phenomenon''.

        The propagation of light never violates causality. In contrast, the light signals are used as massagers of causality.

        ''so if we reject Absolute Time (as we must if we are to practice physics instead of metaphysics), then we should discard causality''.

        There is no Absolute time, causality do not need Absolute time.

        Regards,

        Constantin

        Dear Anton,

        I should add some reasoning against your AB sketch: You write: ''Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event''.

        First of all, such events as the photon's emission and voyage never can be ''a single event'', it is logically and physically impossible. Besides, these three events can be a ''single event'' only if they coincides in space and time. However, actually these events coincide neither in space nor in time. You belive that these events ''coincide'' in time because you believe in the Absolute Time. Actually the flow of time depends on gravity and speed, therefore time flows differently from place to place. Therefore these three events are different events because they do not coincide in time and are spatially separated. Thus, it is a totally wrong statement.

        Regards,

        Constantin

        Dear Constantin,

        You haven't read my essay and comments very careful since I have repeatedly argued why there can be no Absolute Time, why we should discard any such notion in physics. Also I do not look solely through the 'eyes' of a photon where I said that A (a massive particle) sees B's state change as soon as it emits the photon, just as B likewise sees A change the moment it absorbs A's photon. Though to the observer these changes seem to be only randomly connected, as if the emission, voyage and absorption are three completely independent events, since A sees B's state change at the time it emits the photon, it certainly is a single event. If A sees B absorb the photon at the time of the emission, then a finite velocity would mean that since nothing is allowed to happen which might prevent B from absorbing that photon, time would have to stand still for as long as the photon is traveling. Though A sees its entire environment change as it emits a photon, if its voyage would take time, then the effect of B's absorption, its change of state on A would again take time to reach A, which seems equally unlikely. If in a Self-Creating Universe particles are informed about each other's state as they owe that state, their properties to their continuous energy exchange, then we cannot determine whether A wants to get rid of some energy, or if B incites A to produce the photon. If there's no absolute time, then it doesn't make sense to ask what causally precedes what, even though we see one event to happen before the other. This only would be possible if there would be an absolute clock, which, to prevent misunderstanding, does not exist as far as I'm concerned. This means that causality indeed requires the existence of just such an absolute time. If in a SCU particles have to create one another, then they are each other's cause and effect, so the change of state of A cannot causally precede that of B.

        ''The propagation of light never violates causality''

        Indeed, it never violates causality but it doesn't obey causality either. We certainly can use light to cause events to happen elsewhere: my point is that by switching on the light, we do not cause a photon transmission but only facilitate the process, just like by switching on the light we don't cause the potential powering the current.

        ''According to your definition even massive particles cannot be the sources of gravity since their positions are not definite, according to Heisenberg.''

        I should have made clear what I mean with this: At my site www.quantumgravity.nl in Chapter 1.2 'Mass, a quantum mechanical definition' I have defined the rest mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite, as it remains longer within the area corresponding to that indefiniteness, that is, as the probability to find it inside a smaller area is greater. This is why I in my essay I said that the rest energy of a particle depends on its ability to express that energy as gravity, on the definiteness of its position and vice versa. The less indefinite its position is, the greater its mass is, the stronger a source of gravity it is. Since at the 'speed' of light the position of a particle is completely indefinite, it cannot act as a source of gravity. So a beam of light cannot bend space time: only matter can, as you admit as you say:

        ''The curvature is caused by the energy-momentum of matter.''

        This energy-momentum of matter refers to the continuous energy exchange between massive particles by means of which they express and preserve each other's mass. As the particles alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist so their energy in every cycle varies, at a rate equal to their energy, they continuously convert from mass to energy and back again, so you might say that it is this alternating in- and outflow of energy which powers the curvature as well as the mass associated with it.

        ''such events as the photon's emission and voyage never can be ''a single event''

        Well, it is a single event in the sense that the change of state of A and that of B are coupled by the photon transmission, just like paying money for something is a single transaction. That the transmission leads to different events, effects at A and B does not mean that the transmission consists of separate, independent events. Since to a massive observer A and B are separated in space, to him the photon emission at A and its absorption at B are separated in time. As to the photon there is no distance between A and B, to the photon its transmission is instantaneous. The symmetry between A's point of view and that of B, that according to A, B changes at the time it emits the photon, whereas according to B the emission happens as B absorbs the photon, means that even though we certainly measure at duration, it doesn't make sense to ask what causally precedes what.

        Regards, Anton

        Dear Constantin,

        Interesting theory of holes, and of the origin of quantum non-locality. I wonder if your idea of holes connects in any way with Dirac's hole theory.

        Best regards,

        Paul

          • [deleted]

          • Post #25

          Dear Paul,

          Yes - Constantin and I have had similar conversations. My essay talks about the Dirac Sea, and I think it may be related to Constantin's quantum spacetime hole. One significant difference is that Constantin wants to use the spacetime hole for interstellar travel. Its a cool idea, but would require a scale crossover between a quantum Dirac Sea interpretation and a Cosmic Void interpretation.

          Have Fun!

          Dr. Cosmic Ray

          Dear Paul Halpern and Ray Munroe,

          Theorists are looking for similarities between Hole Vacuum and other known theories like Dirac Sea, topological defects and so on. Nevertheless, I'm glad that the Hole Vacuum is a fundamentally new concept that does not repeat other known theories. The concept of Dirac sea does not allow teleportation and cannot explain gravity, inertia and quantum nonlocality. The Hole Vacuum is a better concept because it allows teleportation and can explain gravitation, inertia and quantum phenomena in the same model. Therefore I believe that the Hole Vacuum is a basis for more advanced future physics.

          The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. The positron was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea. The Hole Vacuum is a sea of fluctuating spatial atoms and holes; A hole in spacetime appears when the spatial atom disappears. According to the theory, large holes are able to create electron-positron pairs and other particles.

          Sincerely,

          Constantin

          Dear Constantin,

          Thanks for clarifying. I see the distinction between the Hole Vacuum and the Dirac Sea. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

          Best wishes,

          Paul

          Dear Visitors,

          There are two options: 1) you can vote for the extinction of humanity by suppressing the Hole Vacuum theory. 2) You can vote for the development of Science and Human Evolution by supporting this theory.

          There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth. Earth may be doomed to a sixth major extinction event and Mankind is terribly at risk of going the way of the dinosaurs. Besides, astronomers predict that within a billion years, the Earth will no longer support life. Humans must colonize planets in other solar systems - traveling there using 'Star Trek' - style propulsion - or face extinction, Hawking said. It is impossible to transport humans to stars using rockets, we need a faster than light transportation system. I can prove that wormholes and Alcubierre warp drive are erroneous methods, the Hole Teleportation is the only safe method able to transport humans to stars. The beauty of Hole Teleportation is NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. Sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules. If you support me then I'll be able to publish more papers. Some papers are very specific and can be created by me only. In the nearest future researchers will spend billions of dollars for investigations and experiments with Hole teleportation and the absence of these papers can worsen your future.

          I saw the ''leading essay'', it is a simple discussion about physics, the author wrote ''though the universe itself has cleverly prevented us from determining whether or not it is continuous, I'd like to believe that it is''. It is not correct: the universe is fundamentally discontinuous. This essay cannot advance physics because it does not contain any advanced ideas. In contrast, my theory is a new direction in physics and technology. By voting against Hole Vacuum theory you may sign a death sentence for Mankind.

          Constantin