Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 07:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 07:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 05:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-02 05:13 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:31 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:09 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 09:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 10:57 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-16 11:08 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:07 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:40 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:28 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:53 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-05 01:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 11:49 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 18:06 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:25 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 08:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 11:06 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 13:22 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 12:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 19:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 15:08 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 03:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:27 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:41 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 19:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 23:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 11:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 16:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 04:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:37 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:05 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-12 09:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:24 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:39 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:54 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:22 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 17:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-13 01:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-13 00:19 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 18:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 14:58 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 14:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:12 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 16:01 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 05:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-13 06:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 18:58 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 21:02 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 18:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 17:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 06:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-20 08:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 09:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-25 19:43 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-15 11:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:15 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:42 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:15 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:29 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 00:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 00:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:12 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:37 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-11 16:35 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 12:22 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 18:47 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 15:33 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 21:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:27 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-11-28 07:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:21 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:25 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 21:23 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:54 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:51 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:41 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 19:11 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:42 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 10:20 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 00:53 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 11:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 02:03 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 19:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:49 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:30 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-04 10:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 16:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 09:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:03 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 20:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-02 05:46 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:43 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 08:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 12:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 13:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 16:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-04 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:52 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 18:04 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 11:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:32 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:51 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:48 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:16 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 12:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 16:55 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 12:16 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 17:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3hv2c$h46$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371144 |
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson написал: >> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, >> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. > > The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for > "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea > that "entanglement" > may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but > where no thing moves that fast so information does not. The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or a medium. > The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") > over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. Many people can't sense this difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 09:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5e649d4-d61d-40f5-9d99-49568adf9563@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371146 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson > написал: > > >> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, > >> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. > > > > The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for > > "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea > > that "entanglement" > > may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but > > where no thing moves that fast so information does not. > > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > a medium. > > > The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") > > over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". > > There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as > autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. > Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. > > Many people can't sense this difference. OK, two radiators, detector in the middle, detector off to either side or here a large ring of radiators (of "entangled particles" or waves). Timing then has all the radiators go off at once, then each detector in the ring knows at once that the evaluation of the particle each has a winner, how? (Who flinched.) " ... information transfer does not always requires a carrier or a medium." How is that? (Here, the vacuum of space is considered a medium.) Light then gravity are the fastest things we have in the theory. Then, consider a huge, vacant space where there are three large massy bodies in perfect symmetrical arrangement. They naturally fall together and have constant blue-shift. Stellated about them are three tiny guide-lodes. One of those accelerates, and the system altogether changes from equilibrium, and the guide-lodes variously went off one or each (no "deterministic" information "faster than c"). That's where the event somehow has no more than zero information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 09:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af390e1a-f317-45f4-80ea-5813a0c40efd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371148 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:28:34 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson > > написал: > > > > >> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, > > >> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. > > > > > > The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for > > > "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea > > > that "entanglement" > > > may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but > > > where no thing moves that fast so information does not. > > > > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > > nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > > a medium. > > > > > The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") > > > over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". > > > > There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as > > autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. > > Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. > > > > Many people can't sense this difference. > > OK, two radiators, > detector in the middle, > detector off to either > side or here a large > ring of radiators (of > "entangled particles" > or waves). Timing then > has all the radiators go > off at once, then each > detector in the ring knows > at once that the evaluation > of the particle each has a > winner, how? (Who flinched.) > > " ... information transfer does > not always requires a carrier or > a medium." > > How is that? (Here, the vacuum of > space is considered a medium.) > > Light then gravity are the fastest > things we have in the theory. > > Then, consider a huge, vacant space > where there are three large massy bodies > in perfect symmetrical arrangement. They > naturally fall together and have constant > blue-shift. Stellated about them are three > tiny guide-lodes. One of those accelerates, > and the system altogether changes from > equilibrium, and the guide-lodes variously > went off one or each (no "deterministic" > information "faster than c"). That's where > the event somehow has no more than zero > information. That's like "setting up a house of cards to take a picture", getting up to take the picture breaks the "equilibrium".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 12:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <UPGdnREOZduVD8HLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371146 |
On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 10:55 AM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > nowadays. Nonsense. Among physicists, SR is known to be valid within its domain. It is a simple fact that NOBODY has ever observed the transfer of information faster than c. > Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > a medium. Hmmmm. I know of no instance of information transfer in which "something" did not travel the same route, essentially "carrying" the information. Interpret "something" rather loosely, for instance including the pressure waves we call "sound". Note also that there is a minimum amount of energy transfer required to transfer one bit of information (Google is your friend). Energy transfer is the subject of SR's speed limit. And still, NOBODY has ever observed the transfer of information faster than c. > [... nonsense and word salad] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3i4a9$vp9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371159 |
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:14:32 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts написал: >> Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or a >> medium. > > Hmmmm. I know of no instance of information transfer in which > "something" did not travel the same route, essentially "carrying" the > information. > > Interpret "something" rather loosely, for instance including the > pressure waves we call "sound". Hmmm, let's make it literally. The smallest bit of information is a bit, which in plain English means a TRANSITION from a state to another. Say for 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0. Hence, if a receiver detects a transition of a state on the other side, does not mean that the transition itself was travelling at c or lower, or travelling at all. > Note also that there is a minimum amount of energy transfer required to > transfer one bit of information (Google is your friend). Energy transfer > is the subject of SR's speed limit. I'm my own friend. > And still, NOBODY has ever observed the transfer of information faster > than c. [... nonsense and word salad] We disagree. People observe CHANGES and TRANSITIONS all the time. The fewest of them are implying c or lower than c. Gravity self does not require c or light as carrier, I hope we agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 21:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6f96a2f-7fec-4254-b011-3c9f6a1034b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371146 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-6, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson > написал: > > >> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, > >> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. > > > > The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for > > "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea > > that "entanglement" > > may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but > > where no thing moves that fast so information does not. > > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > a medium. > > > The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") > > over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". > > There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as > autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. > Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. > > Many people can't sense this difference. Yes, in the sense that "information" is conventionally understood as a two-way, go-come measure. We now are starting to realize that one-way measures exist which require no time, and are pre-quantities to be measured BEFORE a certain experiment is performed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 21:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c10b0fc-5de5-4f8c-a4fb-8bbfc5d6f9c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371200 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:23:42 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote: > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-6, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson > > написал: > > > > >> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, > > >> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. > > > > > > The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for > > > "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea > > > that "entanglement" > > > may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but > > > where no thing moves that fast so information does not. > > > > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > > nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > > a medium. > > > > > The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") > > > over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". > > > > There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as > > autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. > > Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. > > > > Many people can't sense this difference. > > Yes, in the sense that "information" is conventionally understood as a two-way, go-come measure. We now are starting to realize that one-way measures exist which require no time, and are pre-quantities to be measured BEFORE a certain experiment is performed. I don't see any reason why information is two-way except for that information is often passing in two directions. Measure and observation itself often have their own impacts to information, vis a vis expectations and so on, or Bridgman's two-way operationalism, or discretization or "funneling" (well focus). Why would you say "information is conventionally understand as a two-way, go-come measure"? That sounds more like "communication" than "signal" which is "encoder/decoder" or "emitter/detector". Then about pre-quantities, I think you mean values of scalars where there are real-valued and scalar- valued measures and about how deltas are unsigned or signed quantities, here that these are the in- line unsigned quantities before on-line signed quantities. Then, why that would see "time" or the passage of time, vis a vis "no time", that is again about the interaction of interference, medium, or the measurement effect, it would seem. In mathematics it seems that "measurement and observation" are like "sampling and counting", then that the pre- quantities are the numbers of the systems that flow in-line while the quantities as measured are the on- line quantities, and here usually signed magnitudes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 22:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f4f6d0f6-5e81-4206-be08-afd2fa5f0f19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371201 |
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:50:41 PM UTC-6, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:23:42 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote: > > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-6, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > > > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson > > > написал: > > > > > > >> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, > > > >> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. > > > > > > > > The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for > > > > "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea > > > > that "entanglement" > > > > may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but > > > > where no thing moves that fast so information does not. > > > > > > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > > > nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > > > a medium. > > > > > > > The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") > > > > over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". > > > > > > There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as > > > autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. > > > Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. > > > > > > Many people can't sense this difference. > > > > Yes, in the sense that "information" is conventionally understood as a two-way, go-come measure. We now are starting to realize that one-way measures exist which require no time, and are pre-quantities to be measured BEFORE a certain experiment is performed. > > I don't see any reason why information is two-way > except for that information is often passing in > two directions. > > Measure and observation itself often have their > own impacts to information, vis a vis expectations > and so on, or Bridgman's two-way operationalism, > or discretization or "funneling" (well focus). > > > Why would you say "information is conventionally > understand as a two-way, go-come measure"? That > sounds more like "communication" than "signal" > which is "encoder/decoder" or "emitter/detector". > > Then about pre-quantities, I think you mean values > of scalars where there are real-valued and scalar- > valued measures and about how deltas are unsigned > or signed quantities, here that these are the in- > line unsigned quantities before on-line signed > quantities. > > Then, why that would see "time" or the passage of > time, vis a vis "no time", that is again about the > interaction of interference, medium, or the measurement > effect, it would seem. > > In mathematics it seems that "measurement and observation" > are like "sampling and counting", then that the pre- > quantities are the numbers of the systems that flow > in-line while the quantities as measured are the on- > line quantities, and here usually signed magnitudes. Wow, that was impressive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 17:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc4tjfF8r2nU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371200 |
On 1/12/2015 4:23 PM, John Gogo wrote: > Yes, in the sense that "information" is conventionally understood as > a two-way, go-come measure. We now are starting to realize that > one-way measures exist which require no time, and are pre-quantities > to be measured BEFORE a certain experiment is performed. > What on Earth is that meant to mean? Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 22:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f5f68969-db86-4d2c-bf33-0f35d5202b04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371204 |
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:38:42 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/12/2015 4:23 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > Yes, in the sense that "information" is conventionally understood as > > a two-way, go-come measure. We now are starting to realize that > > one-way measures exist which require no time, and are pre-quantities > > to be measured BEFORE a certain experiment is performed. > > > > What on Earth is that meant to mean? > > Sylvia Whenever things get complicated, I always go back to the four fundamentals: One-way, one-clock One-way, two-clock Two-way, one-clock Two-way, two-clock Fundamentally, one-way measures must operate differently than two-way systems- otherwise we would not be able to distinguish between them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 11:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cIOdnULT_PQCT8DLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371200 |
On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 11:23 PM, John Gogo wrote: > [...] in the sense that "information" is conventionally understood as a > two-way, go-come measure. Nonsense. That is NOT AT ALL what is meant by "information". Google is your friend. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 17:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc4tmpF8r2nU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371146 |
On 1/12/2015 3:55 AM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:40:48 -0800 пользователь Ross A. Finlayson > написал: > >>> Not so. It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, >>> electrostatic etc. All action at distance. >> >> The idea is that there's a mechanism, "spooky" is Einstein's name for >> "non-causal information propagated at greater than c", with the idea >> that "entanglement" >> may have tachyonic structure, with gravity being "faster" than c, but >> where no thing moves that fast so information does not. > > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > nowadays. Since information transfer does not always requires a carrier or > a medium. > >> The correlation of particles (as structurally some "wave") >> over extended distances is not the same as a "laser beam at 2c". > > There are correlations in time and correlations is space, as well as > autocorrelations. A correlation in space is time independent for instance. > Hence, it might be embedded into the system at the start of the experiment. But Bell's theorem proves that it's not in the case of quantum entanglement. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 07:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1742259.l2N0PYKIuG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371146 |
Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is abolished > nowadays. More nonsense from the 'nym-shifting troll. *PLONK* PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ktt3$eds$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371207 |
суббота., Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:44:31 +0100 пользователь Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn написал: > Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > >> The archaic dogma that information must travel at c or slower is >> abolished nowadays. > > More nonsense from the 'nym-shifting troll. *PLONK* I am entirely new here, PointedHead. I can't avoid to remark, that each time you learn something, implicitly making stupid and insignificant, you always "plonk" various knowledgeable people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 11:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <p4KdnYZZKMgaEcHLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371139 |
On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 10:21 AM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: > It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, electrostatic > etc. All action at distance. Not true. In the field theory of electrostatics (i.e. classical electrodynamics), and in the field theory of gravitation (General Relativity), there is _NO_ "action at a distance". In both theories the field at a given point depends ONLY on the values of the fields and sources at points an infinitesimal distance away (within the past lightcone) of the point in question. This is directly demonstrated in these theories: they are expressed in terms of differential equations. This is, of course, consistent with Einstein's dictum: "All physics is local." Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3i32b$rph$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371152 |
суббота., Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:51:02 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts написал: > On 11/30/15 11/30/15 - 10:21 AM, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote: >> It's about everywhere you have a field. Ie gravity, electrostatic etc. >> All action at distance. > > Not true. In the field theory of electrostatics (i.e. classical > electrodynamics), and in the field theory of gravitation (General > Relativity), there is _NO_ "action at a distance". In both theories the > field at a given point depends ONLY on the values of the fields and > sources at points an infinitesimal distance away (within the past > lightcone) of the point in question. In a way yes, but when you have ie a magnet, you know that the magnet is cause of that action. Without the magnet or the Matter, you have not action. I strongly believe that Gravity in GR is totally different from the field of a magnet. You may interpret it as "spacetime" curvature, but the action at distance will not disappear in any way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 07:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2395916.ujK87JK2CX@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371059 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: >> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the >> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections >> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. > > No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the > scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. > "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind > entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, […] Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at least six experiments already. Einstein’s derision of it as “spooky action at distance” (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett’s and Brassard’s BB84 at the latest. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement> PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 19:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc530mFa43nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371206 |
On 1/12/2015 5:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: >>> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the >>> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections >>> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. >> >> No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the >> scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. >> "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind >> entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, […] > > Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at > least six experiments already. Einstein’s derision of it as “spooky action > at distance” (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett’s and Brassard’s > BB84 at the latest. What was it about "The experiment verifies entanglement" that you found difficult to follow? Or did you only read as far as "No, no, no!"? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2968108.JjNB03i3lN@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371216 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/12/2015 5:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: >>>> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the >>>> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections >>>> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. >>> No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the >>> scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. >>> "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind >>> entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, […] >> Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at >> least six experiments already. Einstein’s derision of it as “spooky >> action at [a] distance” (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett’s and >> Brassard’s BB84 at the latest. > > What was it about "The experiment verifies entanglement" that you found > difficult to follow? > > Or did you only read as far as "No, no, no!"? Oh for crying out loud, it’s the (crack)pot calling the kettle black again. “Spooky action at a distance” is _not_, different from what you stated, “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all […]”. Instead, it is Einstein’s derision of the very idea of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein’s death). PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 10:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc6oa3FnmrbU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371255 |
On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 1/12/2015 5:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: >>>>> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the >>>>> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections >>>>> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. >>>> No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the >>>> scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. >>>> "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind >>>> entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, […] >>> Utter nonsense. Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at >>> least six experiments already. Einstein’s derision of it as “spooky >>> action at [a] distance” (1935) became obsolete in 1984 with Bennett’s and >>> Brassard’s BB84 at the latest. >> >> What was it about "The experiment verifies entanglement" that you found >> difficult to follow? >> >> Or did you only read as far as "No, no, no!"? > > Oh for crying out loud, it’s the (crack)pot calling the kettle black again. > > “Spooky action at a distance” is _not_, different from what you stated, “a > hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not only no > evidence at all […]”. Instead, it is Einstein’s derision of the very idea > of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was experimentally > confirmed later (after Einstein’s death). > You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same as entanglement. It's not. Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing more. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web