Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457929 > unrolled thread

Instantaneous light proved

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 15:09 -0700
    Re: Instantaneous light proved Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:21 -0700
      Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 16:18 -0700
        Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 16:34 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 16:39 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 17:33 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 17:54 -0700
                Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 18:29 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 17:36 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 17:47 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-14 18:39 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 12:29 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-15 14:41 -0700
                Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-18 09:33 -0700
                  Re: Instantaneous light proved Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 09:57 -0700
                    Re: Instantaneous light proved Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 17:35 +0000
                    Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-18 11:02 -0700
      Re: Instantaneous light proved Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-15 10:26 -0500
        Re: Instantaneous light proved Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:21 +0000
    Re: Instantaneous light proved Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-15 10:21 -0500
      Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 12:23 -0700
        Re: Instantaneous light proved Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:33 +0000
          Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 13:26 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-15 21:49 -0500
            Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-15 20:47 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 20:56 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-15 20:59 -0700
                Re: Instantaneous light proved pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 21:23 -0700
                  Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-16 17:14 -0700
                    Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-16 17:30 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-16 09:09 +0000
              Re: Instantaneous light proved Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-16 09:13 +0000
                Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-16 17:33 -0700
        Re: Instantaneous light proved Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-15 21:34 -0500
          Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-18 09:22 -0700
        Re: Instantaneous light proved JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:53 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-17 17:37 -0700
            Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-17 18:15 -0700
              Re: Instantaneous light proved John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 18:40 -0700
          Re: Instantaneous light proved alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-18 09:28 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#457993

W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> 	Correlation is not causation.

Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
 
> Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism. 
> In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local 
> realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is 
> completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not 
> happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle 
> spin correlations....
> 
> 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> 
> Tom Roberts

This shows nothing more that:
the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!

|a+b| > |a|+|b|.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457997

alsor wrote:

> W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> 
>> 	Correlation is not causation.
> 
> Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.

both wrong. Actually a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole 
idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458007

W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 21:33:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Ursula Vankeuren napisał:
> alsor wrote:
> 
> > W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > 
> >> 	Correlation is not causation.
> > 
> > Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
> 
> both wrong. Actually a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole 
> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.

Thus even the worse for the QM-model.
There is no any causation in the EPR-Bell's type improvisations!

These so-called 'nonlocality tests-experiments' are promoted by idiots - uneducated pseudo-scientists!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458034

On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
> idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.

Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one 
needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.

There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply 
causation at all. For instance:
	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458035

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> > a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
> > idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> 
> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one 
> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> 
> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply 
> causation at all. For instance:
> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> 
> Tom Roberts

Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458036

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:47:47 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:

> Tom I don't mean to waste your time.

Unfortunately, John, that's what you do best... waste people's time!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458037

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:47:47 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> > > a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole
> > > idea in setting up a correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> > 
> > Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one 
> > needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> > 
> > There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply 
> > causation at all. For instance:
> > 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> Tom I don't mean to waste your time. I think all of these examples are not representative of what my vision is. I believe the moon is seen where it lies without delay. I believe that the sun is seen where it lies and when we attach a telescope and filter are able to literally see the fire on the surface of the sun. To try to prove my theory I simply say that a light source stationed on the moon that is large enough to be seen will be observed instantaneously. Now the baseline of the speed of light with respect from the distance of the moon is approximately one second- ALL light experiments are performed on Earth or close to Earth (GPS) is bound to have multitudes of atmospheric affects when the measure is a matter of a few miles or much less like counting the number reverberations of an atom within a meter stick.

Every so often I google "instantaneous light". It's amazing how phrases such as this tend to organically self organize as time goes on. One such site that peaked my interest was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458039

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:59:48 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible

"This article is about a fictional communication device."

This is interesting to you and you think it is something that should be discussed on a relativity forum? Really?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458112

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:23:44 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:59:48 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible
> 
> "This article is about a fictional communication device."
> 
> This is interesting to you and you think it is something that should be discussed on a relativity forum? Really?

Yes pnal, it is interesting that in the book The Word for World is Forest, Le Guin explains that in order for communication to work with any pair of ansibles, at least ONE "must be on a large-mass body, the other can be anywhere in the cosmos. This is strangely similar to my theory which has the mathematics of maximum visual acuity to back it up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458114

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 7:14:16 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:23:44 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 8:59:48 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible
> > 
> > "This article is about a fictional communication device."
> > 
> > This is interesting to you and you think it is something that should be discussed on a relativity forum? Really?
> 
> Yes pnal, it is interesting that in the book The Word for World is Forest, Le Guin explains that in order for communication to work with any pair of ansibles, at least ONE "must be on a large-mass body, the other can be anywhere in the cosmos. This is strangely similar to my theory which has the mathematics of maximum visual acuity to back it up.

Here's another: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/InstantLight.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458046

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole idea in setting up a
>> correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> 
> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course one
> needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
> causation at all. For instance:
> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> Tom Roberts

Pardonemoise, but the time τ, or the space q, span is essential. Plus 
those sets of data has to relates somehow, directly or indirectly. Or else 
everything correlates with everything else, and itself. However, auto-
correlation reveals a lot of other interesting things, I'm not going into 
details.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458047

Ursula Vankeuren wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
>>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole idea in setting up a
>>> correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
>> 
>> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course
>> one needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
>> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
>> causation at all. For instance:
>> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> Pardonemoise, but the time τ, or the space q, span is essential. Plus
> those sets of data has to relates somehow, directly or indirectly. Or
> else everything correlates with everything else, and itself. However,
> auto- correlation reveals a lot of other interesting things, I'm not
> going into details.

Forgot to mention, those revelation has always a cause. Not obvious 
directly, but nevertheless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458115

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:13:27 AM UTC-5, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> 
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > 
> >> On 5/15/18 2:33 PM, Ursula Vankeuren wrote:
> >>> a correlation reveals causation. That's the whole idea in setting up a
> >>> correlation. To reveal, or not, the causation.
> >> 
> >> Not really. Sometimes correlation does reveal a cause, but of course
> >> one needs other information to determine which way the causation goes.
> >> There are zillions of examples of correlations which do not imply
> >> causation at all. For instance:
> >> 	http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
> >> Tom Roberts
> > 
> > Pardonemoise, but the time τ, or the space q, span is essential. Plus
> > those sets of data has to relates somehow, directly or indirectly. Or
> > else everything correlates with everything else, and itself. However,
> > auto- correlation reveals a lot of other interesting things, I'm not
> > going into details.
> 
> Forgot to mention, those revelation has always a cause. Not obvious 
> directly, but nevertheless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458033

On 5/15/18 2:23 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>> 	Correlation is not causation.
> 
> Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.

No "improvisation", and no "propaganda" (from me).

>> Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism.
>> In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local
>> realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is
>> completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not
>> happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle
>> spin correlations....
>>
>> 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
>> 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> 
> This shows nothing more that:
> the QM is inconsistent with any reality,

Nope. It is only LOCAL realism that is refuted. As I said.

> thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!

Nope. You clearly don't understand the issues.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458284

W dniu środa, 16 maja 2018 04:34:41 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
> 
> No "improvisation", and no "propaganda" (from me).
> 
> >> Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism.
> >> In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local
> >> realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is
> >> completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not
> >> happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle
> >> spin correlations....
> >>
> >> 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> >> 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> > 
> > This shows nothing more that:
> > the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
> 
> Nope. It is only LOCAL realism that is refuted. As I said.

Do You claim the whole mathematics is local?

a^2+b^2 = c^2 - is this a local relation on not?

> > thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!
> 
> Nope. You clearly don't understand the issues.

You don't understand this subject at all,
and together with the quantum mastered-idiots,
including Bell, Aspect, and many others imbeciles!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458224

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> 
> > 	Correlation is not causation.
> 
> Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
>  
> > Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism. 
> > In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local 
> > realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is 
> > completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not 
> > happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle 
> > spin correlations....
> > 
> > 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> > 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> This shows nothing more that:
> the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
> thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!
> 
> |a+b| > |a|+|b|.

No. Read Conway & Kochen paper on "free will theorem" which derives its
result by using ONLY experimental results (literally, positions of beams
on a screen and the like), and NO theory is presumed EXCEPT certain three 
"axioms", all three of which had been verified experimentally (to the extent 
experiments CAN "verify" such claims in principle):
https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf 

Bonus point if you can pronounce "Alain Aspect" correctly.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458235

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 5:53:13 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > 
> > > 	Correlation is not causation.
> > 
> > Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
> >  
> > > Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism. 
> > > In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local 
> > > realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is 
> > > completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not 
> > > happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle 
> > > spin correlations....
> > > 
> > > 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> > > 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > This shows nothing more that:
> > the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
> > thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!
> > 
> > |a+b| > |a|+|b|.
> 
> No. Read Conway & Kochen paper on "free will theorem" which derives its
> result by using ONLY experimental results (literally, positions of beams
> on a screen and the like), and NO theory is presumed EXCEPT certain three 
> "axioms", all three of which had been verified experimentally (to the extent 
> experiments CAN "verify" such claims in principle):
> https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf 
> 
> Bonus point if you can pronounce "Alain Aspect" correctly.
> 
> --
> Jan

Jan look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light under the section: Generalizations of Lorentz Transformations with Anisotropic One-Way Speeds:

Edwards 1963, says:

The two-way speed of light in vacuum as measured in two (inertial) coordinate systems moving with constant relative velocity is the same regardless of any assumptions regarding the one-way speed (48). So the average speed for round-trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed where as the one-way speed of light is ALLOWED to take the form in opposite directions. 

c+- = c/1+k

k can have values 0 to 1. EXTREME is k nears 1 means that light might propagate in ONE DIRECTION INSTANTANEOUSLY, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction. By the way this wiki article resembles much like my paper, The Instantaneousness of Light and the Four Models of Light Measure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458237

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:37:03 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 5:53:13 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > > 
> > > > 	Correlation is not causation.
> > > 
> > > Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
> > >  
> > > > Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism. 
> > > > In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local 
> > > > realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is 
> > > > completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not 
> > > > happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle 
> > > > spin correlations....
> > > > 
> > > > 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> > > > 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> > > > 
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > > 
> > > This shows nothing more that:
> > > the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
> > > thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!
> > > 
> > > |a+b| > |a|+|b|.
> > 
> > No. Read Conway & Kochen paper on "free will theorem" which derives its
> > result by using ONLY experimental results (literally, positions of beams
> > on a screen and the like), and NO theory is presumed EXCEPT certain three 
> > "axioms", all three of which had been verified experimentally (to the extent 
> > experiments CAN "verify" such claims in principle):
> > https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf 
> > 
> > Bonus point if you can pronounce "Alain Aspect" correctly.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Jan look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light under the section: Generalizations of Lorentz Transformations with Anisotropic One-Way Speeds:
> 
> Edwards 1963, says:
> 
> The two-way speed of light in vacuum as measured in two (inertial) coordinate systems moving with constant relative velocity is the same regardless of any assumptions regarding the one-way speed (48). So the average speed for round-trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed where as the one-way speed of light is ALLOWED to take the form in opposite directions. 
> 
> c+- = c/1+k
> 
> k can have values 0 to 1. EXTREME is k nears 1 means that light might propagate in ONE DIRECTION INSTANTANEOUSLY, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction. By the way this wiki article resembles much like my paper, The Instantaneousness of Light and the Four Models of Light Measure.

Extreme in this instance does not mean rare... it means there are always instances which will occupy the 0 to 1 = k realm... they coexist perpetually.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#459156

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:15:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:37:03 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 5:53:13 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > > > 
> > > > > 	Correlation is not causation.
> > > > 
> > > > Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
> > > >  
> > > > > Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism. 
> > > > > In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local 
> > > > > realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is 
> > > > > completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not 
> > > > > happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle 
> > > > > spin correlations....
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> > > > > 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > 
> > > > This shows nothing more that:
> > > > the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
> > > > thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!
> > > > 
> > > > |a+b| > |a|+|b|.
> > > 
> > > No. Read Conway & Kochen paper on "free will theorem" which derives its
> > > result by using ONLY experimental results (literally, positions of beams
> > > on a screen and the like), and NO theory is presumed EXCEPT certain three 
> > > "axioms", all three of which had been verified experimentally (to the extent 
> > > experiments CAN "verify" such claims in principle):
> > > https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf 
> > > 
> > > Bonus point if you can pronounce "Alain Aspect" correctly.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > 
> > Jan look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light under the section: Generalizations of Lorentz Transformations with Anisotropic One-Way Speeds:
> > 
> > Edwards 1963, says:
> > 
> > The two-way speed of light in vacuum as measured in two (inertial) coordinate systems moving with constant relative velocity is the same regardless of any assumptions regarding the one-way speed (48). So the average speed for round-trip remains the experimentally verifiable two-way speed where as the one-way speed of light is ALLOWED to take the form in opposite directions. 
> > 
> > c+- = c/1+k
> > 
> > k can have values 0 to 1. EXTREME is k nears 1 means that light might propagate in ONE DIRECTION INSTANTANEOUSLY, provided it takes the entire round-trip time to travel in the opposite direction. By the way this wiki article resembles much like my paper, The Instantaneousness of Light and the Four Models of Light Measure.
> 
> Extreme in this instance does not mean rare... it means there are always instances which will occupy the 0 to 1 = k realm... they coexist perpetually.

The acceptance where c is achieved is at k=1/2. K less than one-half? My best guess is that when K approaches 0 light has slowed almost to a stand still.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458285

W dniu piątek, 18 maja 2018 00:53:13 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 15 maja 2018 17:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > 
> > > 	Correlation is not causation.
> > 
> > Don't improvise - this is just a political propaganda.
> >  
> > > Indeed this is only a "transfer" of anything if one believes in local realism. 
> > > In fact, our best model of this, QED, does not satisfy the requirements of local 
> > > realism. Specifically: the spin states of particles are in spin space, which is 
> > > completely independent of space-time and common to all particles. It is not 
> > > happenstance that all Bell-type experiments, like this one, involve particle 
> > > spin correlations....
> > > 
> > > 	That article is an excessively naive discussion that hardly
> > > 	mentioned the main point: refutation of LOCAL realism....
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > This shows nothing more that:
> > the QM is inconsistent with any reality,
> > thus the model is quite wrong - selfcontradicted at first place!
> > 
> > |a+b| > |a|+|b|.
> 
> No. Read Conway & Kochen paper on "free will theorem" which derives its
> result by using ONLY experimental results (literally, positions of beams
> on a screen and the like), and NO theory is presumed EXCEPT certain three 
> "axioms", all three of which had been verified experimentally (to the extent 
> experiments CAN "verify" such claims in principle):
> https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf 
> 
> Bonus point if you can pronounce "Alain Aspect" correctly.
> 
> --
> Jan

The EPR-Bell type of experiments, and theory on which this is based,
is a general fallacy - dogma of the whole science in the 20, nothing more!

these fantastic imbeciles try to prove perfectly false math relation:
|a| + |b| > |a+b|

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web