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 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 22:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dd2f9fFlicjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371889 |
On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: > 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. Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any meaning to the notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, and have some way of justifying your choice. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 09:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f217bd99-5652-4e42-8b47-2f8f2407d34e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371890 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:38:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: > > 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. > > Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any meaning to the > notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, and have some way of > justifying your choice. > > Sylvia Please use care when responding as there is a possibility I could jump off my balcony. It is only the second floor but hey I could sprain an ankle. Use a piece of string to tell if Bob or Alice is closest to the entangled source :<).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 13:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dd42fuF3gqcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371902 |
On 13/12/2015 4:25 AM, John Heath wrote: > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:38:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any meaning >> to the notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, and have some >> way of justifying your choice. >> >> Sylvia > > Please use care when responding as there is a possibility I could > jump off my balcony. It is only the second floor but hey I could > sprain an ankle. I don't imagine that would cause me much pain. Use a piece of string to tell if Bob or Alice is > closest to the entangled source :<). > Where are the ends of the string? Essentially before you can use bits of string, you have to choose a reference frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 20:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf3ba160-a5bd-44a0-abcd-1b26937665de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371923 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/12/2015 4:25 AM, John Heath wrote: > > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:38:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any meaning > >> to the notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, and have some > >> way of justifying your choice. > >> > >> Sylvia > > > > Please use care when responding as there is a possibility I could > > jump off my balcony. It is only the second floor but hey I could > > sprain an ankle. > > I don't imagine that would cause me much pain. > > Use a piece of string to tell if Bob or Alice is > > closest to the entangled source :<). > > > > Where are the ends of the string? Essentially before you can use bits of > string, you have to choose a reference frame. > > Sylvia. You wish to explain simultaneity of time to a group using the classic train and lightening strikes. A hand goes up the the back wanting to know if it is a steam powered train or a diesel power train. How do you feel? That balcony is starting to sound like a viable alternative. That is the same feeling I have when you ask for a frame of reference for a Bell test.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 16:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dd4ce4F5k24U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371928 |
On 13/12/2015 3:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 13/12/2015 4:25 AM, John Heath wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:38:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any >>>> meaning to the notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, >>>> and have some way of justifying your choice. >>>> >>>> Sylvia >>> >>> Please use care when responding as there is a possibility I >>> could jump off my balcony. It is only the second floor but hey I >>> could sprain an ankle. >> >> I don't imagine that would cause me much pain. >> >> Use a piece of string to tell if Bob or Alice is >>> closest to the entangled source :<). >>> >> >> Where are the ends of the string? Essentially before you can use >> bits of string, you have to choose a reference frame. >> >> Sylvia. > > You wish to explain simultaneity of time to a group using the classic > train and lightening strikes. A hand goes up the the back wanting to > know if it is a steam powered train or a diesel power train. How do > you feel? That balcony is starting to sound like a viable > alternative. That is the same feeling I have when you ask for a frame > of reference for a Bell test. > I'm not asking for one. I'm pointing out that you cannot define your notion of "closer" without one. My purpose is to cast doubt on your attempt to determine the direction of the message based on which of the observers is closer. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 05:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7cbd1e82-b4a7-4a32-934a-46f6e2d66cae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371930 |
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 12:01:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/12/2015 3:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 13/12/2015 4:25 AM, John Heath wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:38:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any > >>>> meaning to the notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, > >>>> and have some way of justifying your choice. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia > >>> > >>> Please use care when responding as there is a possibility I > >>> could jump off my balcony. It is only the second floor but hey I > >>> could sprain an ankle. > >> > >> I don't imagine that would cause me much pain. > >> > >> Use a piece of string to tell if Bob or Alice is > >>> closest to the entangled source :<). > >>> > >> > >> Where are the ends of the string? Essentially before you can use > >> bits of string, you have to choose a reference frame. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > You wish to explain simultaneity of time to a group using the classic > > train and lightening strikes. A hand goes up the the back wanting to > > know if it is a steam powered train or a diesel power train. How do > > you feel? That balcony is starting to sound like a viable > > alternative. That is the same feeling I have when you ask for a frame > > of reference for a Bell test. > > > > I'm not asking for one. I'm pointing out that you cannot define your > notion of "closer" without one. My purpose is to cast doubt on your > attempt to determine the direction of the message based on which of the > observers is closer. > > Sylvia. We both agree that FTL is not possible so it is a mute point. However if we assume it is possible then it should be possible for Alice or Bob to send each other a message by measuring or not measuring an entangled pair. The reason is once measured the other entangled particle is set , decided. Being decided ahead of time makes a small difference in the correlation data of Bob's and Alice's data when they compare notes to decode the message. However if Alice is farther away than Bob she can not send a message as the result of her actions of measurement can not go backwards in time. In short it is too late for her to change events that have already happened , causality and all that stuff. It for this reason only the closest one to the entangled source can send a message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 06:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b053b89-225d-46d5-a303-ade679ecf70e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371937 |
W dniu niedziela, 13 grudnia 2015 14:35:35 UTC+1 użytkownik John Heath napisał: > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 12:01:59 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 13/12/2015 3:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > > wrote: > > >> On 13/12/2015 4:25 AM, John Heath wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:38:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 12/12/2015 9:48 PM, John Heath wrote: > > >>>>> 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. > > >>>> > > >>>> Which if them is closer is frame dependent. To attach any > > >>>> meaning to the notion of "closer" you need to choose a frame, > > >>>> and have some way of justifying your choice. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia > > >>> > > >>> Please use care when responding as there is a possibility I > > >>> could jump off my balcony. It is only the second floor but hey I > > >>> could sprain an ankle. > > >> > > >> I don't imagine that would cause me much pain. > > >> > > >> Use a piece of string to tell if Bob or Alice is > > >>> closest to the entangled source :<). > > >>> > > >> > > >> Where are the ends of the string? Essentially before you can use > > >> bits of string, you have to choose a reference frame. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > You wish to explain simultaneity of time to a group using the classic > > > train and lightening strikes. A hand goes up the the back wanting to > > > know if it is a steam powered train or a diesel power train. How do > > > you feel? That balcony is starting to sound like a viable > > > alternative. That is the same feeling I have when you ask for a frame > > > of reference for a Bell test. > > > > > > > I'm not asking for one. I'm pointing out that you cannot define your > > notion of "closer" without one. My purpose is to cast doubt on your > > attempt to determine the direction of the message based on which of the > > observers is closer. > > > > Sylvia. > > We both agree that FTL is not possible so it is a mute point. However if we assume it is possible then it should be possible for Alice or Bob to send each other a message by measuring or not measuring an entangled pair. The reason is once measured the other entangled particle is set , decided. Being decided ahead of time makes a small difference in the correlation data of Bob's and Alice's data when they compare notes to decode the message. However if Alice is farther away than Bob she can not send a message as the result of her actions of measurement can not go backwards in time. In short it is too late for her to change events that have already happened , causality and all that stuff. It for this reason only the closest one to the entangled source can send a message. It's evident You are just fooled by the so-called QM-pseudo math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 18:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9vudnYYKJd_WifPLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371937 |
On 12/13/15 12/13/15 7:34 AM, John Heath wrote: > We both agree that FTL is not possible so it is a mute point. However if we > assume it is possible Counter-factual assumptions are useless. > then it should be possible for Alice or Bob to send > each other a message by measuring or not measuring an entangled pair. Nope. At least not according to QM (which is the only theory in which "entanglement" makes sense). If Alice measures the spin along z of one particle of an entangled pair of spin-1/2 particles in a spin-0 state, Alice can immediately conclude what Bob will measure for the spin along z of the other particle. Bob, however, will measure the spin along z to be up with 50% probability and down with 50% probability, independent of the results Alice obtained. If Alice does not measure her particle, Bob STILL will measure the spin along z to be up with 50% probability and down with 50% probability. So how could this possibly "send a message" from Alice to Bob? -- Bob's results are completely independent of anything Alice can do. (Of course AFTER THE FACT they can compare results and determine the correlation; this obviously does not send a message, either.) > [... further nonsense that is just plain wrong] Entanglement is NOT what you seem to think it is. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 21:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <337b95a5-a92b-4c90-be5b-e75c29104180@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371970 |
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/13/15 12/13/15 7:34 AM, John Heath wrote: > > We both agree that FTL is not possible so it is a mute point. However if we > > assume it is possible > > Counter-factual assumptions are useless. > > > > then it should be possible for Alice or Bob to send > > each other a message by measuring or not measuring an entangled pair. > > Nope. At least not according to QM (which is the only theory in which > "entanglement" makes sense). > > If Alice measures the spin along z of one particle of an entangled pair of > spin-1/2 particles in a spin-0 state, Alice can immediately conclude what Bob > will measure for the spin along z of the other particle. Bob, however, will > measure the spin along z to be up with 50% probability and down with 50% > probability, independent of the results Alice obtained. > > If Alice does not measure her particle, Bob STILL will measure the spin along z > to be up with 50% probability and down with 50% probability. > > So how could this possibly "send a message" from Alice to Bob? -- Bob's results > are completely independent of anything Alice can do. > > (Of course AFTER THE FACT they can compare results and determine > the correlation; this obviously does not send a message, either.) > > > > [... further nonsense that is just plain wrong] > > Entanglement is NOT what you seem to think it is. > > > Tom Roberts You are almost there. If Alice has the polarizing sheet the same polarity of the photons in front of her photo multiplying tube then yes you are right as she never really measured the photon polarity , disturbed the photon , registered on the photo multiplier tube. This is the same has your electron spin where same spin detector registers opposite spin always but 90 degree turn renders 50 / 50 up down spin. However this is not a Bell test. Alice needs to offset her Polarizing sheet by 66 degree. Now she is measuring the photon in a real sense that she is disturbing it. This will lead to a 5/9 correlation with Bob not a 1/2 correlation , 5 percent difference from classical probabilities. Therein is the means for Alice to send a message to Bob when they get together to compare notes later. For my 2 cents I prefer to ignore a Bell 5/9 vs 1/2 probabilities in favor of Einstein position. It is so much easier that way with no entanglement / FTL star trek nonsense. If we could see one qubit quantum computer that has verifiable speed up then I would take a second look. Until then we do not have the goods to say entanglement is true other than a Bell test which is a barcarious balancing act in itself to test for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 18:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Rv-dnaCOvLH7Lu3LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371984 |
On 12/13/15 12/13/15 - 11:02 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> [...] > > You are almost there. That's a laugh, coming from you, who doesn't have a clue where "there" is (assuming it has something to do with understanding entangled states in QM). > [...] Therein is > the means for Alice to send a message to Bob when they get together to > compare notes later. Therein is one aspect of your confusions and errors -- you obviously do not know what a message is. THINK ABOUT IT: if Bob "receives" this "message" when he and Alice "get together to compare notes", why doesn't Alice just tell him the message??? In any case, it simply is not possible to send a message BETWEEN DETECTION EVENTS (which is what this thread has been about until your miscue here). > For my 2 cents Your "2 cents" doesn't matter. My "2 cents" doesn't matter. Bell's and Einstein's "2 cents" don't matter. What matters is EXPERIMENTS, and the models we have constructed to describe them. >[... more nonsense] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 23:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <388f473f-b33d-421c-8286-e3196ffac39f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372111 |
W dniu środa, 16 grudnia 2015 01:42:17 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 12/13/15 12/13/15 - 11:02 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [...] > > > > You are almost there. > > That's a laugh, coming from you, who doesn't have a clue where "there" is > (assuming it has something to do with understanding entangled states in QM). > > > > [...] Therein is > > the means for Alice to send a message to Bob when they get together to > > compare notes later. > > Therein is one aspect of your confusions and errors -- you obviously do not know > what a message is. > > THINK ABOUT IT: if Bob "receives" this "message" when he and Alice "get together > to compare notes", why doesn't Alice just tell him the message??? > > In any case, it simply is not possible to send a message BETWEEN DETECTION > EVENTS (which is what this thread has been about until your miscue here). > > > > For my 2 cents > > Your "2 cents" doesn't matter. My "2 cents" doesn't matter. Bell's and > Einstein's "2 cents" don't matter. What matters is EXPERIMENTS, and the models > we have constructed to describe them. Bell's and Einstein's 2 cents doesn't matter!!!! What matters is EXPERIMENTS, and the Bell's and Einstein's 2 cents. A relativistic moron in action.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 17:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <47186ba7-f164-41de-a4ca-bf9e68712e66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372111 |
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:42:17 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/13/15 12/13/15 - 11:02 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [...] > > > > You are almost there. > > That's a laugh, coming from you, who doesn't have a clue where "there" is > (assuming it has something to do with understanding entangled states in QM). > > > > [...] Therein is > > the means for Alice to send a message to Bob when they get together to > > compare notes later. > > Therein is one aspect of your confusions and errors -- you obviously do not know > what a message is. > > THINK ABOUT IT: if Bob "receives" this "message" when he and Alice "get together > to compare notes", why doesn't Alice just tell him the message??? > > In any case, it simply is not possible to send a message BETWEEN DETECTION > EVENTS (which is what this thread has been about until your miscue here). > > > > For my 2 cents > > Your "2 cents" doesn't matter. My "2 cents" doesn't matter. Bell's and > Einstein's "2 cents" don't matter. What matters is EXPERIMENTS, and the models > we have constructed to describe them. > > > >[... more nonsense] > > > Tom Roberts Yes, it will be extremely painful and difficult to learn no matter what. But, yes, experiments will and have always ruled. Sometimes a new world is opened to us, yet, we do not have the slightest inkling to know how to deal with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 06:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13d3c09b-6738-4462-a97c-2d8e96e67128@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372425 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2DO4I62z8 FTL Quantum entanglement only works if the entanglement is through the temporal horizon. They are still connected to the same spot in time. Spin = 1/(anti-spin) 60/(2*c) * 4pi = 1.25750701 × 10^-6 s / m Double interlaced cubic lattice. Time is interlaced with space. Time is singular, time is the surface of the horizon, magnitude without vector. Michelson Morley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 08:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52688617-7258-4f86-9486-24daf05848fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372454 |
W dniu niedziela, 20 grudnia 2015 15:55:08 UTC+1 użytkownik David Fuller napisał: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2DO4I62z8 > > FTL Quantum entanglement only works if the entanglement is through the temporal horizon. Unfortunately no entanglement exist, nor is possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 11:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <09640728-c981-4ca1-9732-a457e947a275@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372457 |
W dniu niedziela, 20 grudnia 2015 15:55:08 UTC+1 użytkownik David Fuller napisał: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2DO4I62z8 > > FTL Quantum entanglement only works if the entanglement is through the temporal horizon. Unfortunately no entanglement exist, nor is possible. Sure it is ........ http://i62.tinypic.com/2hocm0g.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d18d89a5-1db7-4e40-8e26-41d9eb081be7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372457 |
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 20 grudnia 2015 15:55:08 UTC+1 użytkownik David Fuller napisał: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2DO4I62z8 > > > > FTL Quantum entanglement only works if the entanglement is through the temporal horizon. > > Unfortunately no entanglement exist, nor is possible. May I remind the audience that the above was written by a fellow who cannot answer even simplest test questions on the subject. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd93939f-1296-4f50-8621-208ee81100b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372477 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 grudnia 2015 08:10:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > Unfortunately no entanglement exist, nor is possible. > > May I remind the audience that the above was written by a fellow who cannot answer even simplest test questions on the subject. It's elementary math exercis, bombo. |y+7| >= y+7 you should notice I used y, no x.. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 21:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0c7a7aa0-a805-4ce0-a127-a50d701e2066@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372708 |
On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 12:09:13 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 21 grudnia 2015 08:10:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > Unfortunately no entanglement exist, nor is possible. > > > > May I remind the audience that the above was written by a fellow who cannot answer even simplest test questions on the subject. > > It's elementary math exercis, bombo. > > |y+7| >= y+7 > > you should notice I used y, no x.. :) Nonsense farts as usual. I asked you before to evaluate a specific Feynman diagram: a 2-vertex electron-muon. It's about the simplest Feynman diagram I can think of and you still cannot calculate its value, yet you pontificate crap about entanglement. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 10:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df32eed7-49a1-420d-aea2-7edcf78e04a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372726 |
W dniu piątek, 25 grudnia 2015 06:55:53 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 12:09:13 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 21 grudnia 2015 08:10:29 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > Unfortunately no entanglement exist, nor is possible. > > > > > > May I remind the audience that the above was written by a fellow who cannot answer even simplest test questions on the subject. > > > > It's elementary math exercis, bombo. > > > > |y+7| >= y+7 > > > > you should notice I used y, no x.. :) > > Nonsense farts as usual. I asked you before to evaluate a specific Feynman diagram: > a 2-vertex electron-muon. It's about the simplest Feynman diagram I can think of and > you still cannot calculate its value, yet you pontificate crap about entanglement. > > -- > Jan I just use a simple spherical oscilator only, and get the correct result: m_muon = (3/2 /alpha + 1)m_el = ... thus with a great precission - much more than any measurement can give. Therefore I don't need any of amateurish numerology, especially type of your lover - Feynman. The math is very simple... for any rational man - for orangutans it's just a pure fantasy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 00:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7bcd45a2-4991-4a81-b56e-f95c8ea084b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372794 |
Dear members of this group I am proud that I was able to start a very useful and beautiful discussion. I personally learned a lot from all the exchanges done. Keep up the spirit of free thought. Bless you and a Happy New Year. See you soon Omar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web