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 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 20:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Dv6dnSkJffx3HfbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371804 |
On 12/11/15 12/11/15 6:07 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:50:11 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> [about measuring a system, not just part of it] > Hmmm, a "system" can certainly be isolated in some extent from the rest > of the universe, but in reality the rest of the universe is part of the > system, however minor. Doesn't this mean that the waveform doesn't > "collapse" until you have measured the whole universe? We are REMARKABLY lucky that it is possible to isolate many/most systems of interest such that we can consider them complete in our models. Just as we are amazingly lucky that mathematics can model so many aspects of the world so accurately. The justification for all this is, of course: it works. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b0df785-bc26-429b-9c33-7edd8d328cd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371857 |
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:05:32 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/11/15 12/11/15 6:07 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:50:11 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [about measuring a system, not just part of it] > > Hmmm, a "system" can certainly be isolated in some extent from the rest > > of the universe, but in reality the rest of the universe is part of the > > system, however minor. Doesn't this mean that the waveform doesn't > > "collapse" until you have measured the whole universe? > > We are REMARKABLY lucky that it is possible to isolate many/most systems of > interest such that we can consider them complete in our models. Just as we are > amazingly lucky that mathematics can model so many aspects of the world so > accurately. > > The justification for all this is, of course: it works. > > > Tom Roberts What's cool is that math can project into the future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 09:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4gnec$k3i$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #371857 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:Dv6dnSkJffx3HfbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |The justification for all this is, of course: it works. Why aren't your standards used at GPS, then? Because they don't work. You only imagine it works. Theoretics always do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 05:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <118a6059-1499-4e3c-8de2-d2550e47e05d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371793 |
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 11:50:11 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/10/15 12/10/15 6:41 PM, JanPB wrote: > > I was asking Tom about his saying that "after measuring one particle, > > there's nothing to "collapse" until the other spin is measured also". > > > > This seems to run against the usual (and perhaps old-fashioned but anyway) > > interpretation of the state vector and the projection postulate. > > No it doesn't. You keep trying to consider each particle separately -- that is > WRONG, because the preparation was of a PAIR OF PARTICLES. There is no > "wavefunction for each particle", there is ONLY a wavefunction OF THE PAIR. > > In all Bohr's writings, and all the QM classes I took, the wavefunction > "collapses" AFTER A MEASUREMENT OF THE SYSTEM, because the measurement > determines that it is in the eigenstate corresponding to the eigenvalue that was > measured. That is what "collapse of the wavefunction" means, and it says NOTHING > AT ALL about measuring part of a system, or any sort of "partial collapse" which > you seem to be advocating. > > When you measure one particle, that has NOT determined the final > state, so the wavefunction of the system cannot "collapse". > > > > After > > measuring the spin of the first particle in the z-direction (say), the > > state vector collapses [...] > > No, it doesn't. because you have not measured THE SYSTEM, you only measured part > of it. > > > > The reason this interpretation (despite being quaint to some) makes sense > > to some extent is that the second particle will _not_ necessarily yield > > "up" in the z-direction if the first particle hadn't been measured in the > > z-direction previously. IOW, the second particle has no way of knowing > > in advance what we are going to do with the first particle: the key > > question being: what if I suddenly decide to measure the first particle > > in the x-direction? > > Part that is IRRELEVANT, and the rest is WRONG. Because the initial state of the > system is |0>. You can decide however you like to measure the two particles, you > ALWAYS compute the probability of the result in final state f as |<0|f>|^2, > regardless of what f is. > > Yes, "the second particle has no way of knowing in advance what > we are going to do with the first particle" -- BUT IT DOESN'T > MATTER because we compute <0|f>, in which |f> represents the > results of the measurements WHICH WERE MADE [#] (regardless of > the time sequence in which they were made). <0|f> is independent > of time (and space). > > [#] Measurements is plural when discussing measuring the spins > of the individual particles. But such a pair of measurements is > a single measurement OF THE SYSTEM. This is in the math model only. In measurements made it passes a Bell test therefore you are stuck with non classical correlations . This is a no no as there can not be non classical correlations. One way out is to say the measurement caused the properties that were undecided before measurement was made. It works but now you are stuck with FTL information to the other particle and you can not play the total wave function of the system card as you waved this right when solving the non classical probability problem by saying it was the measurement that caused it. It is a no win. Either stick with the original single system wave model and live with non classical correlations or solve the non classical correlation problem and lose the single system wave model. From my shoes it boils down to live with non classical correlations or live with FTL. There are other solutions with different time lines and multiple universes but that is just grabbing at straws with Star Trek solutions. > > You MUST learn to think of the system, not the individual particles. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 20:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <KYWdnSxBtZ71GPbLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371813 |
On 12/11/15 12/11/15 7:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > [...]there can not be non classical correlations. [...] Nonsense. You cannot impose your personal wishes and dreams on nature. > One way out [...] More nonsense. The "way out" is, of course, quantum mechanics. > [...] FTL [...] More nonsense. FTL has never been observed, and our current models agree with Bell-type experiments without it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 18:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6b1f23b6-12b3-4a61-8028-1ba31be49db8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371861 |
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:24:41 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/11/15 12/11/15 7:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > > [...]there can not be non classical correlations. [...] > > Nonsense. You cannot impose your personal wishes and dreams on nature. > > > > One way out [...] > > More nonsense. The "way out" is, of course, quantum mechanics. > > > > [...] FTL [...] > > More nonsense. FTL has never been observed, and our current models agree with > Bell-type experiments without it. > > > Tom Roberts At least you are standing your ground. It doesn't matter how wrong you are. It matters how sane you are most.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 18:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <611ca337-85a5-449c-b22f-844f0dfb50af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371862 |
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:39:37 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:24:41 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 12/11/15 12/11/15 7:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > > > [...]there can not be non classical correlations. [...] > > > > Nonsense. You cannot impose your personal wishes and dreams on nature. > > > > > > > One way out [...] > > > > More nonsense. The "way out" is, of course, quantum mechanics. > > > > > > > [...] FTL [...] > > > > More nonsense. FTL has never been observed, and our current models agree with > > Bell-type experiments without it. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > At least you are standing your ground. It doesn't matter how wrong you are. It matters how sane you are most. It is very difficult to get a visual from Bell-type experiments. While at the same time, it might be at the heart of a new type of dimensionalism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 02:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <94c47867-efda-4334-90f9-985814469971@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371861 |
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:24:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/11/15 12/11/15 7:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > > [...]there can not be non classical correlations. [...] > > Nonsense. You cannot impose your personal wishes and dreams on nature. > > > > One way out [...] > > More nonsense. The "way out" is, of course, quantum mechanics. > > > > [...] FTL [...] > > More nonsense. FTL has never been observed, and our current models agree with > Bell-type experiments without it. > > > Tom Roberts Yes but your argument is subjective. You interpret a successful Bell test as verifying QM as correct that comes with the baggage of FTL information. Another interpretation is QM or the Bell test must be wrong as it leads to FTL information. The argument that this information can not be known until correlations of data slower than the speed of light does not change the fact that it arrived FTL. Your interpretation tosses relativity in the trash bin with FTL information. With the latter interpretation we leave the door open to explore minor adjustments to QM to avoid FTL. I say minor adjustments as QM is a great theory that is consistent with measurements made. An example of a minor adjustment would be to speculate that an electron jumps from A to B at speed c always with a net average speed slower than c. When the full weight of SR is applied to this speculation the electron is length contracted to two spins only not 3 spins. A measurement of the electron spin if always spin up will be in the electrons FoR not ours. If the magnetic gradient is twisted 90 degrees all up spins return to 50 / 50 mix of up down spins. That measurement is in our FoR not the electron FoR as the magnetic gradient is effecting spin splitting it into up down spin. This will surely fail a Bell test when spin up down and forward are considered in our FoR therefore the baggage of FTL is gone while preserving QM . As this is just speculation it is more likely to be another dead end road. However a bright follow such as your self could come up with many such alternative to allow both relativity and QM to be right. Something that is wrong with a Bell test leading to FTL is the key.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 12:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <wNudnYDgWY47_fHLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371887 |
On 12/12/15 12/12/15 - 4:22 AM, John Heath wrote: > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:24:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/11/15 12/11/15 7:43 AM, John Heath wrote: >>> [...]there can not be non classical correlations. [...] >> Nonsense. You cannot impose your personal wishes and dreams on nature. >>> One way out [...] >> More nonsense. The "way out" is, of course, quantum mechanics. >>> [...] FTL [...] >> More nonsense. FTL has never been observed, and our current models agree >> with Bell-type experiments without it. > > Yes but your argument is subjective. No. It is based on the mathematical structure of QM and on the observed experimental results. > You interpret a successful Bell test as > verifying QM as correct that comes with the baggage of FTL information. NOT AT ALL! You obviously have not been reading what I have written. There is no "FTL baggage". > Another interpretation is QM or the Bell test must be wrong as it leads to > FTL information. No. That is not a valid "interpretation", and the results of the experiments are known. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE. There is NOTHING "FTL" here, just standard calculations in QM. > The argument that this information can not be known until correlations of > data slower than the speed of light does not change the fact that it arrived > FTL. You have OBVIOUSLY not been reading what I have written. This is just nonsense. > Your interpretation tosses relativity in the trash bin with FTL information. You have OBVIOUSLY not been reading what I have written. This is just nonsense. > [...] There's no point in continuing until you actually READ what I have written. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c23340f8-ae2e-49d2-90e7-5cefa60fd7b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371904 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 1:00:08 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/12/15 12/12/15 - 4:22 AM, John Heath wrote: > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:24:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 12/11/15 12/11/15 7:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > >>> [...]there can not be non classical correlations. [...] > >> Nonsense. You cannot impose your personal wishes and dreams on nature. > >>> One way out [...] > >> More nonsense. The "way out" is, of course, quantum mechanics. > >>> [...] FTL [...] > >> More nonsense. FTL has never been observed, and our current models agree > >> with Bell-type experiments without it. > > > > Yes but your argument is subjective. > > No. It is based on the mathematical structure of QM and on the observed > experimental results. > Both QM mathematical structure and observed experimental results experimental result are in agreement. This being the case both Alice and Bob can be placed in such a way , 1 light apart in different directions , that information had to travel FTL. I am open to any argument you have to dismiss this but it must be on a level playing field of measurements made only not QM mathematical structure. To do otherwise would be the tail wagging the dog. You made some other interesting points but I would like to focus on FTL. You are not tossing GR in the trash bin but you are politely handing it its hat with FTL. I do not think you can have FTL and GR so it comes down to FTL. You say it is not FTL. If I place Alice and Bob 1 light year apart in different directions how are you going to avoid FTL ? I will provide as many details as I can to show how this leads to FTL. Assuming you are already aware of these details how do you defend your position of passing a Bell test but not FTL information. Do not think of this as a challenge. Being wrong would be to my benefit. I have eaten crow so many times I have become accustom to the taste and found a little salt and pepper goes a long way to please the palate. How do you avoid FTL. The ball is in your court. > > > You interpret a successful Bell test as > > verifying QM as correct that comes with the baggage of FTL information. > > NOT AT ALL! You obviously have not been reading what I have written. There is no > "FTL baggage". > > > > Another interpretation is QM or the Bell test must be wrong as it leads to > > FTL information. > > No. That is not a valid "interpretation", and the results of the experiments are > known. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE. There is NOTHING "FTL" here, just standard > calculations in QM. > > > > The argument that this information can not be known until correlations of > > data slower than the speed of light does not change the fact that it arrived > > FTL. > > You have OBVIOUSLY not been reading what I have written. This is just nonsense. > > > > Your interpretation tosses relativity in the trash bin with FTL information. > > You have OBVIOUSLY not been reading what I have written. This is just nonsense. > > > > [...] > > There's no point in continuing until you actually READ what I have written. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 17:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <GY6dnQx3651kMfHLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371909 |
On 12/12/15 12/12/15 1:56 PM, John Heath wrote: > [...]that information had > to travel FTL. [...] Your basic problem seems to be an inability for self-examination and self-criticism. You simply do not see the assumption you are implicitly making: that information is transmitted in these experiments. Had you actually read what I have written, you would know that NO INFORMATION IS TRANSMITTED BETWEEN THE DETECTIONS. > I would like to focus on FTL Why? It has never been observed. If you want to go off into your personal fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but keep it out of physics newsgroups. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 01:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4idc6$7t1$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #371915 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:GY6dnQx3651kMfHLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |Why? It has never been observed. In opposition to travelling with almost-light-speed twins, observers falling into black holes, parallel universes etc, etc, etc, etc. |If you want to go off into your personal |fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but |keep it out of physics newsgroups. Why won't you, then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4idjd$jmf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371915 |
Il giorno mercoledì Sat, 12 Dec 2015 17:25:45 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto: >> I would like to focus on FTL > > Why? It has never been observed. Clearly it hasn't. Suppose it would have been, observed, but immediately a faulty connected cable will be detected. Or a boundary somewhere into the system has been exceeded. If there are no boundaries to be exceeded into that system, then those boundaries will be created.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 17:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faaa79e8-db76-4d4d-b25c-54a4dceb5ac8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371915 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:25:47 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/12/15 12/12/15 1:56 PM, John Heath wrote: > > [...]that information had > > to travel FTL. [...] > > Your basic problem seems to be an inability for self-examination and > self-criticism. You simply do not see the assumption you are implicitly making: > that information is transmitted in these experiments. > > Had you actually read what I have written, you would know that NO INFORMATION IS > TRANSMITTED BETWEEN THE DETECTIONS. > > > > I would like to focus on FTL > > Why? It has never been observed. If you want to go off into your personal > fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but keep it out of physics newsgroups. > > > Tom Roberts There is instantaneous (one-way) and there is c (two-way)- there is no mixing in between. In this sense, there is no FTL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 18:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <866bb159-9211-4754-8de5-0f7417c92e8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371921 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:25:47 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 12/12/15 12/12/15 1:56 PM, John Heath wrote: > > > [...]that information had > > > to travel FTL. [...] > > > > Your basic problem seems to be an inability for self-examination and > > self-criticism. You simply do not see the assumption you are implicitly making: > > that information is transmitted in these experiments. > > > > Had you actually read what I have written, you would know that NO INFORMATION IS > > TRANSMITTED BETWEEN THE DETECTIONS. > > > > > > > I would like to focus on FTL > > > > Why? It has never been observed. If you want to go off into your personal > > fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but keep it out of physics newsgroups. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > There is instantaneous (one-way) and there is c (two-way)- there is no mixing in between. In this sense, there is no FTL. If it did come to mixing- then I would have to say that it comes in between exposure times and the speed of light,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2884f604-e794-4d35-8b95-5e11454b5c4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371915 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/12/15 12/12/15 1:56 PM, John Heath wrote: > > [...]that information had > > to travel FTL. [...] > > Your basic problem seems to be an inability for self-examination and > self-criticism. You simply do not see the assumption you are implicitly making: > that information is transmitted in these experiments. > > Had you actually read what I have written, you would know that NO INFORMATION IS > TRANSMITTED BETWEEN THE DETECTIONS. > > > > I would like to focus on FTL > > Why? It has never been observed. If you want to go off into your personal > fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but keep it out of physics newsgroups. > > > Tom Roberts Why are you kicking the chess board over? Here is your link to a detailed explanation of a Bell test leading to the conclusion of FTL. Please do not say he lives in a fantasy world as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM An additional video with fancy graphics coming to the same conclusion of FTL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 14:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dd48mgF4sejU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371926 |
On 13/12/2015 1:20 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/12/15 12/12/15 1:56 PM, John Heath wrote: >>> [...]that information had >>> to travel FTL. [...] >> >> Your basic problem seems to be an inability for self-examination and >> self-criticism. You simply do not see the assumption you are implicitly making: >> that information is transmitted in these experiments. >> >> Had you actually read what I have written, you would know that NO INFORMATION IS >> TRANSMITTED BETWEEN THE DETECTIONS. >> >> >>> I would like to focus on FTL >> >> Why? It has never been observed. If you want to go off into your personal >> fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but keep it out of physics newsgroups. >> >> >> Tom Roberts > > Why are you kicking the chess board over? Here is your link to a detailed explanation of a Bell test leading to the conclusion of FTL. Please do not say he lives in a fantasy world as well. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM His starting premise - that there only two possible ways in which this might work - is flawed. There is no particular reason to think there aren't other possibilities. This means that his Sherlock Holmes style conclusion at the end is also flawed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 20:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <24ecffad-66c9-451b-b0a7-b354f6c0cbb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371927 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/12/2015 1:20 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:25:47 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 12/12/15 12/12/15 1:56 PM, John Heath wrote: > >>> [...]that information had > >>> to travel FTL. [...] > >> > >> Your basic problem seems to be an inability for self-examination and > >> self-criticism. You simply do not see the assumption you are implicitly making: > >> that information is transmitted in these experiments. > >> > >> Had you actually read what I have written, you would know that NO INFORMATION IS > >> TRANSMITTED BETWEEN THE DETECTIONS. > >> > >> > >>> I would like to focus on FTL > >> > >> Why? It has never been observed. If you want to go off into your personal > >> fantasy world, nobody can stop you, but keep it out of physics newsgroups. > >> > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > Why are you kicking the chess board over? Here is your link to a detailed explanation of a Bell test leading to the conclusion of FTL. Please do not say he lives in a fantasy world as well. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM > > His starting premise - that there only two possible ways in which this > might work - is flawed. There is no particular reason to think there > aren't other possibilities. This means that his Sherlock Holmes style > conclusion at the end is also flawed. > > Sylvia. The English tend to understate things. It is part of the culture. The Sherlock Holmes style was more like check mate you are stuck with FTL or non classical probabilities. Neither one is acceptable so I agree with you that there has to be alternative ways to resolve these issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 14:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dd1gttFenqlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371813 |
On 12/12/2015 12:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > From my shoes it boils down to live with non classical correlations or live with FTL. FTL doesn't work anyway. Which direction is the information travelling in? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 02:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <110b8fd5-4354-4604-89f6-569c72e5bd7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371864 |
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:00:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/12/2015 12:43 AM, John Heath wrote: > > From my shoes it boils down to live with non classical correlations or live with FTL. > > FTL doesn't work anyway. Which direction is the information travelling in? > > Sylvia. The first one to collapse the entangled states sets the direction of information. If Alice is closer to the entangled pair source she can measure or not measure and by doing this send a message to Bob that will show up in data correlation. If Bob is closer to the entangled pair source he can send Alice a message by measuring or not measuring. It is the one that is closest that sets the direction of information. If Alice and Bob are 1 light year apart in different directions then the collapsed or not collapsed entanglement information , correlation , had to arrive FTL. Neither Bob or Alice can interpret this information until they get together years later to compare notes. However this information is time stamped so it can be said that it did arrive FTL event if Alice or Bob can not be aware of it until years later. If that sounds like word salad I would have to agree :<). There is some logic to it in my mind if that helps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web