Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-21 13:36 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 12:09 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-14 12:18 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-14 17:42 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 23:09 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:16 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:10 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 11:21 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 16:54 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 12:04 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:19 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 12:23 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:43 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 11:17 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-15 14:43 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-16 12:50 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 22:40 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 23:01 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:53 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 02:22 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:25 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:30 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:34 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:05 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 05:23 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:55 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:05 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 07:13 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:34 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-14 07:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 08:03 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:04 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:27 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 08:29 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:58 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:30 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:40 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 15:00 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:06 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 16:07 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:57 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 15:03 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:20 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 16:19 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:11 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:32 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:31 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 08:23 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:27 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:52 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:40 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:13 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:26 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:29 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 07:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 23:25 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 02:21 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 20:04 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 21:15 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 18:38 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:02 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:37 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:03 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:23 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 21:46 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:29 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 13:51 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:01 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:06 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-17 14:26 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:39 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-21 13:36 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Instantaneous action at a distance is real |
| Message-ID | <8205fc8c-7eac-4141-8294-c8d3be48bb70@googlegroups.com> |
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b2b5ab2-0bb2-4cd0-a2e7-99c0be31514b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369850 |
W dniu piątek, 13 listopada 2015 01:50:40 UTC+1 użytkownik John Gogo napisał: > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html Bell was a mathematical imbecile: IQ <= 79. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 12:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dangeiFns93U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369850 |
On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. There is still no evidence for any action at a distance. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb604403-06f7-4565-bbd6-a8f700bce395@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369903 |
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:18:14 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > > > > They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. > > There is still no evidence for any action at a distance. > > Sylvia. But it's NIST!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 17:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dao3ecFruvuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369913 |
On 14/11/2015 5:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:18:14 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html >>> >> >> They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. >> >> There is still no evidence for any action at a distance. >> >> Sylvia. > > But it's NIST! > I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is evidence for action at a distance. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 23:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4c896e8-a149-467e-862f-48262158a683@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369914 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:42:23 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/11/2015 5:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:18:14 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > >>> > >> > >> They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. > >> > >> There is still no evidence for any action at a distance. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > But it's NIST! > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is > evidence for action at a distance. > > Sylvia. Your tough to satisfy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n27mpc$fc5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369914 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is > evidence for action at a distance. If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <daqak2Ff4g6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369977 |
On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: > W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else > napisał: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is >> evidence for action at a distance. > > If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the > other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. > John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action at a distance. He is mistaken. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 10:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be4a0e29-9f4c-4b1a-827c-8a7f95fb734e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370080 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: > > W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else > > napisał: > > > >> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is > >> evidence for action at a distance. > > > > If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the > > other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. > > > > John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action > at a distance. He is mistaken. > > Sylvia. The effects of gravity's changes (as a force) are instantaneous with motion and distance. The mentioned experiment is spin entanglement or quantum entanglement "hidden variables" not "spooky action", as of long distance equilibrium effects as via gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 11:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <daslrpF3802U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370122 |
On 16/11/2015 5:10 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: >>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else >>> napisał: >>> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is >>>> evidence for action at a distance. >>> >>> If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the >>> other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. >>> >> >> John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action >> at a distance. He is mistaken. >> >> Sylvia. > > The effects of gravity's changes (as a force) > are instantaneous with motion and distance. You've tested that? How? > > The mentioned experiment is spin entanglement > or quantum entanglement "hidden variables" not > "spooky action", as of long distance equilibrium > effects as via gravity. > Bell's theorem (note, theorem, not theory) excludes the hidden variable solution. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 16:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07b96003-a207-427b-8d5f-a003850d51d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370157 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:21:16 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/11/2015 5:10 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: > >>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else > >>> napisał: > >>> > >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is > >>>> evidence for action at a distance. > >>> > >>> If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the > >>> other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. > >>> > >> > >> John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action > >> at a distance. He is mistaken. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The effects of gravity's changes (as a force) > > are instantaneous with motion and distance. > > You've tested that? How? > > > > > The mentioned experiment is spin entanglement > > or quantum entanglement "hidden variables" not > > "spooky action", as of long distance equilibrium > > effects as via gravity. > > > > Bell's theorem (note, theorem, not theory) excludes the hidden variable > solution. > > Sylvia. Here "hidden variables" is "quantum entanglement field effect" or in a sense "same crest snowflake of the wave that was that particle". This is where the notional snowflake is that each is unique, here that the wave that was that "particle" tips out or crests the same for each, "quantum entanglement", I guess that's about Bell and E-P-R (Einstein Podolsky Rosen). Information propagates at < c. For testing gravity's instantaneous effect, the Earth doesn't have massy bodies moving near c, for usually the astronomical survey to find systems that would so exhibit here the usual constant force of gravity and the instantaneous effect to all reference frames of changes (for example as "curving space-time" does).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 12:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dasocvF3sn0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370160 |
On 16/11/2015 11:54 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:21:16 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16/11/2015 5:10 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: >>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else >>>>> napisał: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is >>>>>> evidence for action at a distance. >>>>> >>>>> If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the >>>>> other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. >>>>> >>>> >>>> John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action >>>> at a distance. He is mistaken. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The effects of gravity's changes (as a force) >>> are instantaneous with motion and distance. >> >> You've tested that? How? >> >>> >>> The mentioned experiment is spin entanglement >>> or quantum entanglement "hidden variables" not >>> "spooky action", as of long distance equilibrium >>> effects as via gravity. >>> >> >> Bell's theorem (note, theorem, not theory) excludes the hidden variable >> solution. >> >> Sylvia. > > Here "hidden variables" is "quantum entanglement > field effect" or in a sense "same crest snowflake > of the wave that was that particle". It's not helpful to redefine terms that have an accepted meaning. > > This is where the notional snowflake is that each > is unique, here that the wave that was that "particle" > tips out or crests the same for each, "quantum > entanglement", I guess that's about Bell and E-P-R > (Einstein Podolsky Rosen). > I have no idea what you're trying to say there. > Information propagates at < c. It can propagate at c. It's not constrained to be less than c. > > For testing gravity's instantaneous effect, the > Earth doesn't have massy bodies moving near c, for > usually the astronomical survey to find systems that > would so exhibit here the usual constant force of > gravity and the instantaneous effect to all reference > frames of changes (for example as "curving space-time" > does). > That appears to be gibberish. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6335ef67-1b5a-40f3-846e-b002534fe789@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370161 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/11/2015 11:54 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:21:16 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16/11/2015 5:10 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: > >>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else > >>>>> napisał: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is > >>>>>> evidence for action at a distance. > >>>>> > >>>>> If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the > >>>>> other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action > >>>> at a distance. He is mistaken. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The effects of gravity's changes (as a force) > >>> are instantaneous with motion and distance. > >> > >> You've tested that? How? > >> > >>> > >>> The mentioned experiment is spin entanglement > >>> or quantum entanglement "hidden variables" not > >>> "spooky action", as of long distance equilibrium > >>> effects as via gravity. > >>> > >> > >> Bell's theorem (note, theorem, not theory) excludes the hidden variable > >> solution. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Here "hidden variables" is "quantum entanglement > > field effect" or in a sense "same crest snowflake > > of the wave that was that particle". > > It's not helpful to redefine terms that have an accepted meaning. > > > > > This is where the notional snowflake is that each > > is unique, here that the wave that was that "particle" > > tips out or crests the same for each, "quantum > > entanglement", I guess that's about Bell and E-P-R > > (Einstein Podolsky Rosen). > > > > I have no idea what you're trying to say there. > > > Information propagates at < c. > > It can propagate at c. It's not constrained to be less than c. > > > > > > For testing gravity's instantaneous effect, the > > Earth doesn't have massy bodies moving near c, for > > usually the astronomical survey to find systems that > > would so exhibit here the usual constant force of > > gravity and the instantaneous effect to all reference > > frames of changes (for example as "curving space-time" > > does). > > > That appears to be gibberish. > > Sylvia. In the curved space model, the space about massy bodies is instantaneously defined by their mass(es). Tests upholding this are usually also of the rest of the standard etcetera. Here "hidden variables" is more along the lines of "shared constants" of the two entangled particles. Right, information propagates at <= c, thank you. (There is an instant of recognition, though. That is in part about what the measurement / observer effect _is_ and what it _does_.) EPR, M-M, and Bell are names of experiments usually used to establish various interpretations (or decisions, un-scientific) of effect. They've seen various interpretations and decisions over time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 17:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c746198-d054-46e2-b1cf-0296a7235888@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370164 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 5:13:39 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 16/11/2015 11:54 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:21:16 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 16/11/2015 5:10 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> On 15/11/2015 3:16 AM, Ty Knotts wrote: > > >>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Sylvia Else > > >>>>> napisał: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. NIST haven't said that this is > > >>>>>> evidence for action at a distance. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If there is none, why are you talking about it. It could be, once the the > > >>>>> other entangled particle needs to turn itself upside-done. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> John appears to think that the cited experiment is evidence for action > > >>>> at a distance. He is mistaken. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> The effects of gravity's changes (as a force) > > >>> are instantaneous with motion and distance. > > >> > > >> You've tested that? How? > > >> > > >>> > > >>> The mentioned experiment is spin entanglement > > >>> or quantum entanglement "hidden variables" not > > >>> "spooky action", as of long distance equilibrium > > >>> effects as via gravity. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Bell's theorem (note, theorem, not theory) excludes the hidden variable > > >> solution. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Here "hidden variables" is "quantum entanglement > > > field effect" or in a sense "same crest snowflake > > > of the wave that was that particle". > > > > It's not helpful to redefine terms that have an accepted meaning. > > > > > > > > This is where the notional snowflake is that each > > > is unique, here that the wave that was that "particle" > > > tips out or crests the same for each, "quantum > > > entanglement", I guess that's about Bell and E-P-R > > > (Einstein Podolsky Rosen). > > > > > > > I have no idea what you're trying to say there. > > > > > Information propagates at < c. > > > > It can propagate at c. It's not constrained to be less than c. > > > > > > > > > > For testing gravity's instantaneous effect, the > > > Earth doesn't have massy bodies moving near c, for > > > usually the astronomical survey to find systems that > > > would so exhibit here the usual constant force of > > > gravity and the instantaneous effect to all reference > > > frames of changes (for example as "curving space-time" > > > does). > > > > > That appears to be gibberish. > > > > Sylvia. > > In the curved space model, the space about > massy bodies is instantaneously defined by > their mass(es). > > Tests upholding this are usually also of > the rest of the standard etcetera. > > Here "hidden variables" is more along the > lines of "shared constants" of the two > entangled particles. > > Right, information propagates at <= c, thank you. > > (There is an instant of recognition, though. That > is in part about what the measurement / observer > effect _is_ and what it _does_.) > > EPR, M-M, and Bell are names of experiments > usually used to establish various interpretations > (or decisions, un-scientific) of effect. They've > seen various interpretations and decisions over time. (These are or were sometimes called "paradoxes", some have no paradoxes in theory, for eventual decisions or resolutions, or impasse.) No paradoxes! The value of Einstein's cosmological constant is a real mathematical infinitesimal. Most relativistic experiment we can have at scale are mostly observational of the sky survey, where otherwise for the simple "gravity is instantaneous effect" that would be a laboratory more or less free of influence of any other massy body, i.e., "far, far away".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 12:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <daspglF44n0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370164 |
On 16/11/2015 12:13 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Here "hidden variables" is more along the > lines of "shared constants" of the two > entangled particles. Bell's theorem proves that such a system cannot produce the observed results. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 17:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2da20c78-912b-4598-b405-7ba7ee2fabf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370166 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/11/2015 12:13 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > Here "hidden variables" is more along the > > lines of "shared constants" of the two > > entangled particles. > > Bell's theorem proves that such a system cannot produce the observed > results. > > Sylvia. "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." Here, the value of the spin of the particles is of their quantum entanglement that they are evaluated together and basically represent the same wave, as a particle, not two particles. Otherwise I agree that the system does not have any indeterminism, where even the probabilistic outcomes are deterministic, for an interpretation of Bell's theorem. There's no structure beneath the probabilistic, but quantum entanglement involves an effect over a region and that the "particles" (echoes of a wave) are so "entangled" as they are the same event (the echo of the wave). Besides the fact that gravity is built into the geometry, gravity is absolute, or rather because gravity is absolute, it's built into the geometry. (Then about whether space-time is really curved and how lensing establishes that, there's a notion of establishing the Fresnel optical lensing of relatively large massy and shiny bodies like suns. Either way, gravity isn't not instantaneous, and gravity is a constant "force", that is the field of all the things.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 11:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <713994b5-caff-487b-80a2-6efcc0433cac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369903 |
W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 02:18:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > > > > They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. Indeed. There are always a great predictions of any fallacy... HAHAHA!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <daqal4Ff4g6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370004 |
On 15/11/2015 6:17 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 02:18:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html >>> >> >> They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. > > Indeed. There are always a great predictions of any fallacy... HAHAHA! > The correlations are real enough. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 14:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <47ec92d4-9b1d-4439-a84c-f693f0ee707c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370081 |
W dniu niedziela, 15 listopada 2015 03:57:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 15/11/2015 6:17 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 02:18:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > >>> > >> > >> They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. > > > > Indeed. There are always a great predictions of any fallacy... HAHAHA! > > > > The correlations are real enough. > > Sylvia. These are artificial, thus nonrealistic, unfortunately. |x-y| <= 1 - xy; for any numbers: x,y from [-1,1]; Thus the QM self-contradicts itself - it's a naked fallacy.. just a pseudoscience, like the flat Earth and other such absurdity without any ground.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 11:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <daslojF3802U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370145 |
On 16/11/2015 9:43 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 15 listopada 2015 03:57:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 15/11/2015 6:17 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 02:18:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 13/11/2015 11:50 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html >>>>> >>>> >>>> They've verified the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. >>> >>> Indeed. There are always a great predictions of any fallacy... HAHAHA! >>> >> >> The correlations are real enough. >> >> Sylvia. > > These are artificial, thus nonrealistic, unfortunately. It predicts the results of certain measurements, and when we do the measurements, we get the predicted results. That's real enough in the ordinary sense of the word. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web