FTL is a fact, relativity is dead.

[Uwe Hayek]

FTL is a fact, Relativity is dead.

Let's al go to Relativity's funeral.

Watch this Video excerpt from Anton Zeilinger's experiment,
and hear Morgan Freeman say "THIS is IMPOSSIBLE"....

http://inertia-notime.com/Videos/Zeilinger%20FTL%20Experiment.mp4

Wiki Anton Zeilinger , the worlds leading quantum experimentalist :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger


And Please, relativists, no whining that actually no information was
send.., you did it last time as a save, but this time it is going to
sound silly, if ever you sounded differently...

Uwe Hayek.

[Sam Wormley]

You misunderstand Anton Zeilinger experiment Uwe. Relativity is not
falsified by quantum entanglement. Nice Video.

--
-Sam Wormley

[mpc755]

The do not change their vibrations faster than the speed of light. In
order for there to be conservation of momentum, they are exact
opposites from the time of their creation.

[Uwe Hayek]

I beg to differ. A different kind of setup, mmx+ftl and we can measure
our absolute speed locally (speed wrt to the mass distribution of the
universe, of course) .

Lorents rulez ! (s and z swapped intentionally)

Then, some laws of physics will differ in different frames....
meaning relativity is ..... dead.

> Nice Video.

There are some interruptions, that drove me crazy.
In the end, acamd, the software that reads the codes from the
card-reader had an option : filter EMM packets. When trying something
else, I accidentally had switched it of, so now these subscription
activation and deactivation packets were mixed into the video stream and
caused the problems.
I can now reactivate my card by letting EMM packets through, after
requesting an activation packet. As soon as the packet comes through I
switch the EMM filter back on, and enjoy flawless HD video.

I hope they retransmit this episode, so I can record it without the
interruptions.

In Quicktime, it is lip-sync, other players do not fare well. I reduced
the 1920 on 1080 to 1280 on 720, and it plays well on my smartphone
Samsung s2, LG 3d (920) except for the lip-sync. Used Cyberlink's
MediaEspresso for the reduction.

Watch this one also, on Gravity probe B :
http://www.inertia-notime.com/Videos/Gravity%20probe%20B-%20Beyond%20The%20Cosmos.mp4

Same shit with the interruptions and the lip-sync.

Yes, I am a perfectionist, in my videos and my theories :-)

Uwe Hayek.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:34:48 AM UTC-7, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> FTL is a fact,

Only in terms of slow moving light in a medium...

> Relativity is dead.

It is an appearance of opposite motion...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
5015803a$0$6972$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl

[snip]

> Yes, I am a perfectionist, in my videos and my theories :-)
>
> Uwe Hayek.

Too bad you never heard of an electromagnetic field:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NeverHeard.html
Here's a list for perfectionists:
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22electromagnetic+field%22

Dirk Vdm

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:jv422h$t37$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
5015803a$0$6972$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl

[snip]

> Yes, I am a perfectionist, in my videos and my theories :-)
>
> Uwe Hayek.

Too bad you never heard of an electromagnetic field:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NeverHeard.html

=====================================
I know what a magnetic field is from experience, and I know what
an electric field is too, but an electromagnetic field? Is that some kind
of faggot, like you?
Add me to your fumbles, Dork, I've never heard of an electromagnetic
field either, ya fucking moron.
-- Androcles

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/29/12 7/29/12 - 7:34 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> FTL is a fact, Relativity is dead.

Not true. You are MISINTERPRETING Zeilinger's experiment.

> Watch this Video excerpt from Anton Zeilinger's experiment, and hear Morgan
> Freeman say "THIS is IMPOSSIBLE"....
> http://inertia-notime.com/Videos/Zeilinger%20FTL%20Experiment.mp4

OK, it did load after about 10 minutes.

The writers of this video ARE NOT PHYSICISTS. Yes, he says "this is impossible",
but saying so does not make it so. In fact, he said that about the very
experiment he is discussing, so it is CLEAR that the writers are using their
poetic license far too much, and the video cannot be relied upon.

As I said before, quantum entanglement CANNOT be used to send signals faster
than the speed of light; quantum entanglement DOES NOT refute relativity. And
this video does not even begin to address the real issues.

Claiming this video demonstrates that "FTL exists" is like referencing a 2nd
grade math book as proving Fermat's last theorem -- just plain wrong. A related
claim could be that Zeilinger's papers demonstrate that "FTL exists and refutes
relativity", but that is no better as they do not actually do so.

> And Please, relativists, no whining that actually no information was send..,

This is not "whining", this is merely stating a FACT about the experiment (and
about all related experiments as well -- NONE of them have ever sent a signal
faster than the speed of light).

Remember the mantra: correlation is not causation. You are confusing a quantum
CORRELATION (aka entanglement) with causation (sending a signal or influence).

> A different kind of setup, mmx+ftl and we can measure our absolute speed
> locally (speed wrt to the mass distribution of the universe, of course) .

There is no reasonable expectation of that. In particular, I don't think that
entanglement works with an interferometer in the way you have in mind.

The theory we have about such phenomena, QED, has proven to be an excellent
model of all phenomena within its domain; indeed it is the most accurate theory
we have. In QED there is no possibility to send SIGNALS FTL, or to measure
"absolute speed".

Actually this is much wider than just QED: in EVERY theory of
modern physics it is not possible to either send a signal FTL
or to measure "absolute speed".

This does not mean that QED is "how the world works". But it does mean that
until someone has performed an experiment that refutes it, physicists will use
QED. Zeilinger certainly has NOT done so.

Note that QED has SR in its foundations.


Tom Roberts

[Vilas Tamhane]

What nonsense is this? Either there is something that is FTL or there
is no entanglement.

[Big Dog]

On 7/30/2012 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> What nonsense is this? Either there is something that is FTL or there
> is no entanglement.

WRONG. You have a basic misunderstanding.
Quantum entanglement does not imply FTL communication, nor vice versa.
Learning why these two are conceptually and logically separated is the
FIRST thing you have to do on this subject.

>

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/30/12 7/30/12 - 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Either there is something that is FTL or there
> is no entanglement.

In addition to not understanding the very basics of SR, you clearly do not
understand quantum mechanics, either.

You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you STUDY. Posting
nonsense to the 'net is just wasting your time. GO STUDY. Learn something about
the subject before attempting to write about it.


Tom Roberts

[G=EMC^2]

Einstein would say. "you jumped to fast" The only way stuff gets from
A to B faster is to shorten the distance. We have yet to foreshorten
space. That day is 250,000 years away. TreBert

[Ilja]

Am Montag, 30. Juli 2012 23:21:12 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> As I said before, quantum entanglement CANNOT be used to send signals faster
> than the speed of light; quantum entanglement DOES NOT refute relativity.
>

> Remember the mantra: correlation is not causation. You are confusing a quantum
> CORRELATION (aka entanglement) with causation (sending a signal or influence).

But there is also another mantra in science: If there is a non-trivial correlation, it requires a causal explanation.

Without this second mantra, even a working FTL phone could be ignored: Indeed, whatever you can do with such a working phone, you can observe only correlations, and not causations. Causation is always only part of the theoretical explanation of the correlation. So without the scientific requirement that a nontrivial correlation requires causal explanation relativity becomes an unfalsifiable dogma.

But if you require a realistic causal explanation of quantum correlations, relativity is dead - because of the violation of Bell's inequality.

> The theory we have about such phenomena, QED, has proven to be an excellent
> model of all phenomena within its domain; indeed it is the most accurate theory
> we have. In QED there is no possibility to send SIGNALS FTL, or to measure
> "absolute speed".

Indeed, but this is not the question. QED is not a complete realistic theory, it does not give a realistic explanation, it gives only prescriptions how to compute some probabilities, without any explanation.

> Actually this is much wider than just QED: in EVERY theory of
> modern physics it is not possible to either send a signal FTL
> or to measure "absolute speed".

Not really a valuable point, once we have not yet a reasonable theory of quantum gravity.

> Note that QED has SR in its foundations.

Not really a big point. In some weak sense, the Lorentz ether also has SR in its foundations.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 7/31/2012 3:06 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>>
>> What nonsense is this? Either there is something that is FTL or there
>> is no entanglement.
>
> WRONG. You have a basic misunderstanding.

> Quantum entanglement does not imply FTL communication, nor vice versa.

Well, Big Dog, it actually does.

Even at the smallest scales, particles are at two or more places at the
same time, implying ftl. Only at these scales, uncertainty rules, so
nobody can measure it. When we spread uncertainty over 5 miles, like
Zeilinger did in his experiment, FTL becomes painfully clear.

We use entanglement in Quantum logical gates using chlorophyll
molecules, and build components of supercomputers. That calculate with
ftl speeds.

Saying "entanglement" implies uncertainty, implies FTL.

It is all about the inertial field : Mach's Principle, external mass
causing inertia locally.

Inertia is close to infinite near a black hole, and close to zero below
the Heisenberg uncertainty conditions.

Inertia sets the speed of light, near a black hole, the speed of light
is almost zero, but when there is no inertia, the speed of light is
almost infinite. Always viewed from our Earthly reference frame, of course.

> Learning why these two are conceptually and logically separated is the
> FIRST thing you have to do on this subject.

But uniting them is one of the greatest challenges in physics today.

There are only a few real entanglement experiments,
Aspect's, Zeilinger, and Quantum computer gates, all three point clearly
to FTL.

Even the enigma of particle/wave duality of both matter and waves, can
be solved imnsho with ftl.

In "The End Of Time" Julian Barbour makes, again imnsho, a dramatic
mistake, when he says he prefers the "many worlds" above "ftl".

Well, which one sounds the more plausible to you ?

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 7/31/2012 3:20 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 3:06 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What nonsense is this? Either there is something that is FTL or there
>>> is no entanglement.
>>
>> WRONG. You have a basic misunderstanding.
>
>> Quantum entanglement does not imply FTL communication, nor vice versa.
>
> Well, Big Dog, it actually does.

No, it actually doesn't.

>
> Even at the smallest scales, particles are at two or more places at the
> same time, implying ftl.

No sir. The problem is your mental ASSUMPTION that a particle BY
DEFINITION means something that is localized at a particular place at a
particular time. What we now understand is that this claim of
localization is simply not descriptive of the things actually in nature.
This was first glimmered in that awkward concept of particle-wave
duality. One of the critical elements of how a classical wave is
distinguished from a classical particle is that a classical wave does
not exhibit localizability. So when we started to realize that at a
fundamental level, those things we *label* particles are in fact quantum
states that do not exhibit localization. Their behavior is characterized
by a LACK of localizability. By saying, "But they MUST be localized,
because that's what we MEAN by the word 'particle'," is to attempt to
impose on nature our own semantic connotations rather than to recognize
how things really behave.

Objects in nature really are spread out over space (and time), so that
being in two places at once does NOT imply FTL travel of a localized
object from over HERE to a localized object over THERE.

This is also where Einstein fell down. He believed that a two-particle
system exhibited the principle of locality -- that the two objects
really existed independently in two separable locations. Quantum
mechanics, however, correctly treats certain two particle systems as ONE
state, spread out over space, so that there is no principle of locality
respected. Thus, quantum entanglement simply means that something that
affects the SINGLE quantum state over HERE also affecgts that SAME
quantum state over THERE, without implying anything about a signal that
has to go from a localized entity over HERE to another localized entity
over THERE.

Until you recognize what quantum mechanics is saying at a fundamental
level about this, you will not capture the distinction.

[Uwe Hayek]

A lot of humbug over something very simple.

In Newtonian dynamics it is easy to exchange time and distance for a
particle with a fixed speed. At any time we know its distance traveled,
and at any distance we know the time traveled.

But now , enter zero travel time, as these non localized particles
suggest. If travel time goes to zero, speed goes to infinite, and we
cannot determine a distance nor time for the particle. It can be anywhere.

But infinite speed is also ftl.

> Objects in nature really are spread out over space (and time), so that
> being in two places at once does NOT imply FTL travel of a localized
> object from over HERE to a localized object over THERE.

If it is not FTL, then it must be little green fairies.

I think I will stick to FTL.

> This is also where Einstein fell down. He believed that a two-particle
> system exhibited the principle of locality -- that the two objects
> really existed independently in two separable locations. Quantum
> mechanics, however, correctly treats certain two particle systems as ONE
> state, spread out over space, so that there is no principle of locality
> respected. Thus, quantum entanglement simply means that something that
> affects the SINGLE quantum state over HERE also affecgts that SAME
> quantum state over THERE, without implying anything about a signal that
> has to go from a localized entity over HERE to another localized entity
> over THERE.

So they are connected with a subliminal connection that signals at FTL
speeds ?

Ftl for dummies : you have light travelling horizontally at c at sea level.
One meter above the light travels somewhat faster. Look : FTL again.

Yes, I know, Space is bigger there, and clocks run faster.

> Until you recognize what quantum mechanics is saying at a fundamental
> level about this, you will not capture the distinction.

You make a total artificial distinction. I order for QM to do what it
does, it has to do FTL.

So, I guess your prediction is "NO FTL in the next 5 years" ?

I say : FTL is now. It will just get worse. For you to deny it.

And by then you will have made a fool of yourself.

Uwe Hayek.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/1/12 8/1/12 7:39 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 1:52 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 3:20 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> Even at the smallest scales, particles are at two or more places at the
>>> same time, implying ftl.
>>
>> No sir. The problem is your mental ASSUMPTION that a particle BY
>> DEFINITION means something that is localized at a particular place at a
>> particular time. What we now understand is that this claim of
>> localization is simply not descriptive of the things actually in nature.
>> This was first glimmered in that awkward concept of particle-wave
>> duality. One of the critical elements of how a classical wave is
>> distinguished from a classical particle is that a classical wave does
>> not exhibit localizability. So when we started to realize that at a
>> fundamental level, those things we *label* particles are in fact quantum
>> states that do not exhibit localization. Their behavior is characterized
>> by a LACK of localizability. By saying, "But they MUST be localized,
>> because that's what we MEAN by the word 'particle'," is to attempt to
>> impose on nature our own semantic connotations rather than to recognize
>> how things really behave.
>
> A lot of humbug over something very simple.

No, it is not "humbug", and it is most definitely not "simple". You violate
Einstein's dictum:

"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
-- A. Einstein

Big Dog is right, here.

> In Newtonian dynamics it is easy to exchange time and distance for a particle
> with a fixed speed. At any time we know its distance traveled, and at any
> distance we know the time traveled.

But Newtonian mechanics DOES NOT APPLY to the realm of elementary particles.
That is, it is not a good model, and is easily refuted by the very experiments
you attempt to reference and misinterpret: any experiment displaying quantum
entanglement (including Zeiliger's).


In modern physics, particles are not "very small BBs [#]", and they do not act
at all like the particles of our everyday experience. In our best modern
theories (QFTs such as the standard model), they are excitations of a
(continuous) quantum field. At large scales and coarse-graining, they can be
APPROXIMATELY localized and the their speed can be APPROXIMATELY measured [@];
at small scales such measurements are not possible.

[#] A BB is a small metal sphere used in pistols and rifles powered
by compressed air or CO2, about 4.5 mm in diameter.

[@] The approximations involved are related to Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, and are due to the underlying CONTINUOUS
field (its continuity prevents such measurements from being sharp).


Like relativity theory, it is QUITE CLEAR that you do not understand quantum
theory. You will never learn anything by posting nonsense to the 'net, you need
to STUDY.

In particular, when you just discuss "FTL", you will remain confused
by YOUR OWN lack of precision. What is relevant is FTL SIGNALING,
and that has never been demonstrated. FTL correlations are consistent
with the theory; yes, FTL correlations have been demonstrated, but
that is consistent with both quantum theory and relativity.


Tom Roberts

[Big Dog]

Sorry, but it ain't humbug. This is a basic concept in quantum
mechanics, and quantum mechanics describes a lot of things very well
that cannot be described with classical physics. That's why it's useful
to learn what quantum mechanics.

>
> In Newtonian dynamics it is easy to exchange time and distance for a
> particle with a fixed speed. At any time we know its distance traveled,
> and at any distance we know the time traveled.
>
> But now , enter zero travel time, as these non localized particles
> suggest. If travel time goes to zero, speed goes to infinite, and we
> cannot determine a distance nor time for the particle. It can be anywhere.

You're not getting it. You are assuming that a particle must GO from
point A to point B. In quantum mechanics the thing exists at A and at B
both, right now. There is no GOING from one place to another, no travel
implied AT ALL.

>
> But infinite speed is also ftl.
>
>
>> Objects in nature really are spread out over space (and time), so that
>> being in two places at once does NOT imply FTL travel of a localized
>> object from over HERE to a localized object over THERE.
>
> If it is not FTL, then it must be little green fairies.

Quantum mechanics is not that difficult to grasp. Calling it little
green fairies because you don't want to spend the time learning what it
means is not really a legitimate tactic.

>
> I think I will stick to FTL.
>
>
>> This is also where Einstein fell down. He believed that a two-particle
>> system exhibited the principle of locality -- that the two objects
>> really existed independently in two separable locations. Quantum
>> mechanics, however, correctly treats certain two particle systems as ONE
>> state, spread out over space, so that there is no principle of locality
>> respected. Thus, quantum entanglement simply means that something that
>> affects the SINGLE quantum state over HERE also affecgts that SAME
>> quantum state over THERE, without implying anything about a signal that
>> has to go from a localized entity over HERE to another localized entity
>> over THERE.
>
> So they are connected with a subliminal connection that signals at FTL
> speeds ?

No. They are ONE state. NOT two states connected with a connection.

>
> Ftl for dummies : you have light travelling horizontally at c at sea level.
> One meter above the light travels somewhat faster. Look : FTL again.
>
> Yes, I know, Space is bigger there, and clocks run faster.
>
>> Until you recognize what quantum mechanics is saying at a fundamental
>> level about this, you will not capture the distinction.
>
> You make a total artificial distinction. I order for QM to do what it
> does, it has to do FTL.

Not at all. You just miss the point of what quantum mechanics is saying.
It does not good to dismiss a basic concept and insist that quantum
mechanics is saying something else entirely.

>
> So, I guess your prediction is "NO FTL in the next 5 years" ?

Not with a signal passed at FTL.

[G=EMC^2]

Planck time ticks fo QM Einstein time ticks for GR

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message

501923d4$0$6959$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl

[snip]

> A lot of humbug over something very simple.

Humbug like HIV doesn't cause AIDS, no doubt:
https://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=uwe+hayek+hiv+aids

Dirk Vdm

[Uwe Hayek]

I beg to differ : "traversing all paths at the same time", the heart of
QED, requires FTL. Or Magic. I 'll go for ftl.

> but this is not the question. QED is not a complete realistic theory,
> it does not give a realistic explanation, it gives only prescriptions
> how to compute some probabilities, without any explanation.
>
>> Actually this is much wider than just QED: in EVERY theory of
>> modern physics it is not possible to either send a signal FTL or to
>> measure "absolute speed".
>
> Not really a valuable point, once we have not yet a reasonable theory
> of quantum gravity.

Look at it this way : mass produces inertia, our inertia is produced by
the whole universe. This inertia gives us Newtonian certainty, an object
will remain immobile until kicked, we can calculate the trajectory of a
canon ball with certainty. Gravitation occurs when this inertial field,
produced by mass, has a gradient.

Enter UNcertainty : below mass*speed*distance, an action, <hbar/2
inertia does not apply. No certainty, and impossible to store energy
below these conditions, because there is no inertia to store it in.

Thus we have quantum mechanics, we need a minimum packet size of energy,
or we have no energy at all.

Now, what on Earth (and in the Heavens) is /Quantum Gravity/ if the lack
of inertia/gravitation is the /cause/ of quantization ?

Hence : *QUANTUM GRAVITY is an OXYMORON*

(Even the mathematics refuse to work on this)

Oh yes, A clock is an inertiameter , and the speed of light is set by
the strength of the inertial field, uncertainty means no inertia, hence
no speed limit, ftl.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 7/30/2012 11:21 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/29/12 7/29/12 - 7:34 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> FTL is a fact, Relativity is dead.
>
> Not true. You are MISINTERPRETING Zeilinger's experiment.

Thank you, oh, relativity Master, at least I tried. Which you absolutely
did not. You are going to repeat the same attempt at "criticism" you
relativists threw at Aspect's experiment, without even noticing that
this experiment is totally different.

>> Watch this Video excerpt from Anton Zeilinger's experiment, and hear
>> Morgan
>> Freeman say "THIS is IMPOSSIBLE"....
>> http://inertia-notime.com/Videos/Zeilinger%20FTL%20Experiment.mp4
>
> OK, it did load after about 10 minutes.

What a contempt. Prior to investigation.
My interpretation of your experience differs : you just have a slow
internet connection.

And it is possible to stream the video , for instance with videolan.org
's VLC player. For one obscure Apple reason or another, quicktime does
not stream, not even for local files, and it takes an oodle before it
goes through the whole big HD file. (200mb)

> The writers of this video ARE NOT PHYSICISTS.

Anton Zeilinger not a physicist ?

> Yes, he says "this is
> impossible", but saying so does not make it so. In fact, he said that about the very
> experiment he is discussing, so it is CLEAR that the writers are using
> their poetic license far too much, and the video cannot be relied upon.

So, you were totally clueless this experiment took place?

STUDY, Roberts, then STUDY some MORE....

> As I said before, quantum entanglement CANNOT be used to send signals
> faster
> than the speed of light; quantum entanglement DOES NOT refute
> relativity.

"but saying so does not make it so"?

You are just repeating a relativistic mantra.

The EPR experiment was designed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (E-P-R)
to prove Quantum Mechanics wrong.

When Alain Aspect did his experiment, all the other explanations were
carefully excluded, Bell's inequalities proved that there were NO hidden
variables.

Einstein was wrong, the experiment held up Quantum Mechanics.

A sane person would conclude that the result of measurement on one end
of the experiment was transmitted to the other end, and this IS FTL.

Of course with this kind of experiment it is not possible to send USEFUL
information to the other end.

A save which defies all logic, as we are used from relativists, such as
when twin Betty turns around and breaks the symmetry.

Information is information and information about the spin of the photon
measurement IS transmitted FTL.

But you managed to do some damage control, just like SSRI pharma crowd,
when there is a ant-depressant shootout.

Zeilinger's experiment is quite different, but you are quite confident
that your current dogma wil be able to present another epicycle.

> And this video does not even begin to address the real issues.

I think there is only one person with the vast competence to address the
real issue. And you would not recognize that person even if he was
sitting on you lap.

Why don't you address the real issue ?

> Claiming this video demonstrates that "FTL exists"

Actually, it is not the video that proves that ftl exists, but the
experiment described in the video. And that is done by "the WORLDS
LEADING Quantum experimentalist", Anton Zeilinger.

When I last STUDIED I learned that theories should be tested by
experiments.

What good is doing experiments when you plan to reject the results a
priori ? Which is what you did, since you already rejected the result
BEFORE seeing the video. (The first time I posted it you had already
argumented against it, and had not even seen it.)

> is like referencing a
> 2nd grade math book as proving Fermat's last theorem -- just plain
> wrong.

So the experiment is wrong !
How do you know that ? Tell us !

> A related claim could be that Zeilinger's papers demonstrate that
> "FTL exists and refutes relativity", but that is no better as they do
> not actually do so.

Have you read them ? (link ?)

>> And Please, relativists, no whining that actually no information was
>> send..,
>
> This is not "whining", this is merely stating a FACT about the
> experiment (and
> about all related experiments as well -- NONE of them have ever sent a
> signal
> faster than the speed of light).

You have a different idea what "signal" and "FTL" means.

Let me guess : he is using a wormhole. So the distance shrunk and there
was no FTL ?


> Remember the mantra:

I am very bad with mantras, I leave them to experts like you.

> correlation is not causation. You are confusing a
> quantum
> CORRELATION (aka entanglement) with causation (sending a signal or
> influence).

And you cannot do better than this ? Actually, you are addressing
Zeilinger's experiment with arguments against Aspect's experiment.

It is painful. The experiments are quite different.

Even in Aspect's experiment, correlation was excluded, although Bell's
Equalities are quite hairy, and unintuitive.

>
>> A different kind of setup, mmx+ftl and we can measure our absolute speed
>> locally (speed wrt to the mass distribution of the universe, of course) .
>
> There is no reasonable expectation of that. In particular, I don't think
> that entanglement works with an interferometer in the way you have in mind.

It is better for mankind that you don't think. Keep it that way.
I have not seen you thinking for the last 5 years, and have not seen you
studying the last 5 years... So why change now ?

> The theory we have about such phenomena, QED, has proven to be an
> excellent model of all phenomena within its domain; indeed it is the
> most accurate theory we have. In QED there is no possibility to send
> SIGNALS FTL, or to measure "absolute speed".

Maybe you should do some more study. Zeilinger claims that this result
is "allowed" by QM, and he is probably not referring to QED, but to the
Schrodinger equation.

And, once we have FTL, we can measure our absolute speed. That is
exactly the reason why relativists hate the notion of FTL.

> Actually this is much wider than just QED: in EVERY theory of
> modern physics it is not possible to either send a signal FTL
> or to measure "absolute speed".

Thus you are certain about uncertainty ?

> This does not mean that QED is "how the world works". But it does mean
> that until someone has performed an experiment that refutes it,
> physicists will use QED. Zeilinger certainly has NOT done so.
>
> Note that QED has SR in its foundations.

Another fine mantra. Everything observable has SR in its foundation, as
it deals with inertia. Only some observations do not make sense, as
particles seem to be in many places at the same time.

SO, when Feynman uses "All Possible Paths" they must be traversed ftl
because there is no other way you can traverse "All Possible Paths" with
sub-luminal speeds.

QED has FTL written all over it.

If you just would open your eyes.

"If one studies too zealously, one easily loses his pants." --Albert
Einstein

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

Yes, and everybody is clueless about why quantum mechanics works this
way. Almost everybody.

Even Zeilinger is clueless :
(2) Discovery HD - Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, aired in
Europe march, 22, 2012, 00-00-00 GMT , episode �How does the Universe
Work ?� : (0:15:48 - 0:16:07)

Anton Zeilinger : �The message here is, that we have quantum physics now
around for nearly 100 years and we are still working at the foundations,
and that tells me that when we found it, it will be an absolute
revelation. It will be something different from what we have been thinking.�
http://www.inertia-notime.com/Videos/Quantum%20Mechanics-Anton%20Zeilinger%20-%20Absolute%20Revelation.mp4

>
>>
>> In Newtonian dynamics it is easy to exchange time and distance for
>> a particle with a fixed speed. At any time we know its distance
>> traveled, and at any distance we know the time traveled.
>>
>> But now , enter zero travel time, as these non localized particles
>> suggest. If travel time goes to zero, speed goes to infinite, and
>> we cannot determine a distance nor time for the particle. It can be
>> anywhere.
>
> You're not getting it. You are assuming that a particle must GO from
> point A to point B. In quantum mechanics the thing exists at A and
> at B both, right now. There is no GOING from one place to another, no
> travel implied AT ALL.

That is the green fairy interpretation. An infinite speed interpretation
also works. Magic will work also.

I think an (almost) infinite speed is the most plausible. I am not a
magician, and maybe at next carnival a green fairy. Maybe.

And infinite speed fits perfectly to having no inertia, in F=m*a, if
the inertial
mass goes to zero, you can have huge a's with almost no F.

>>
>> But infinite speed is also ftl.
>>
>>
>>> Objects in nature really are spread out over space (and time), so
>>> that being in two places at once does NOT imply FTL travel of a
>>> localized object from over HERE to a localized object over
>>> THERE.
>>
>> If it is not FTL, then it must be little green fairies.
>
> Quantum mechanics is not that difficult to grasp.

I not only grasp it, but also explain it. Mechanistically and
intuitively. It just needs ftl.

> Calling it little
> green fairies because you don't want to spend the time learning what
> it means is not really a legitimate tactic.

Quantum mechanics is meaningless without ftl.

>>
>> I think I will stick to FTL.
>>
>>
>>> This is also where Einstein fell down. He believed that a
>>> two-particle system exhibited the principle of locality -- that
>>> the two objects really existed independently in two separable
>>> locations. Quantum mechanics, however, correctly treats certain
>>> two particle systems as ONE state, spread out over space, so that
>>> there is no principle of locality respected. Thus, quantum
>>> entanglement simply means that something that affects the SINGLE
>>> quantum state over HERE also affecgts that SAME quantum state
>>> over THERE, without implying anything about a signal that has to
>>> go from a localized entity over HERE to another localized entity
>>> over THERE.
>>
>> So they are connected with a subliminal connection that signals at
>> FTL speeds ?
>
> No. They are ONE state. NOT two states connected with a connection.

One non-localized state, thus one state, with two ends, and something
that signals when the end of one state gets disturbed to the other end?

Semantics....

And nobody knowing what is actually happening under the hood ?

>
>>
>> Ftl for dummies : you have light travelling horizontally at c at
>> sea level. One meter above the light travels somewhat faster. Look
>> : FTL again.
>>
>> Yes, I know, Space is bigger there, and clocks run faster.
>>
>>> Until you recognize what quantum mechanics is saying at a
>>> fundamental level about this, you will not capture the
>>> distinction.
>>
>> You make a total artificial distinction. I order for QM to do what
>> it does, it has to do FTL.
>
> Not at all. You just miss the point of what quantum mechanics is
> saying.

You just want to miss the point.

> It does not good to dismiss a basic concept and insist that
> quantum mechanics is saying something else entirely.

Do you have a better way of explaining QM than with FTL ?

wave particle duality :
ftl -the particle weaves the wave at ftl speeds.

particle at two points at the same time
easy to explain with ftl.

collapse of the wave function:
the moment the particle is "caught" or "measured" it can no longer weave
the wave, and the wave function collapses.

>>
>> So, I guess your prediction is "NO FTL in the next 5 years" ?
>
> Not with a signal passed at FTL.

Suppose we use three Zeilinger setups : 1-2-3.

In order to signal something, we can disturb in a different sequence,
3!, thus we can already transmit 6 different signals.

You already lost.


Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

No sir. It's not complicated to understand why quantum mechanics works
this way. You may have some difficulties with it, but that's just
because you haven't put any effort into understanding it.

>
> Even Zeilinger is clueless :
> (2) Discovery HD - Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, aired in
> Europe march, 22, 2012, 00-00-00 GMT , episode �How does the Universe
> Work ?� : (0:15:48 - 0:16:07)
>
> Anton Zeilinger : �The message here is, that we have quantum physics now
> around for nearly 100 years and we are still working at the foundations,
> and that tells me that when we found it, it will be an absolute
> revelation. It will be something different from what we have been
> thinking.�
> http://www.inertia-notime.com/Videos/Quantum%20Mechanics-Anton%20Zeilinger%20-%20Absolute%20Revelation.mp4

And he's off the mark.

You must have this internal voice that tells you, "If someone else can
understand it, then surely I could understand it. Since I can't
understand it, then it must be true that nobody understands it. Let me
see if I can find someone else that can't understand it to prove my point."

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> In Newtonian dynamics it is easy to exchange time and distance for
>>> a particle with a fixed speed. At any time we know its distance
>>> traveled, and at any distance we know the time traveled.
>>>
>>> But now , enter zero travel time, as these non localized particles
>>> suggest. If travel time goes to zero, speed goes to infinite, and
>>> we cannot determine a distance nor time for the particle. It can be
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> You're not getting it. You are assuming that a particle must GO from
>> point A to point B. In quantum mechanics the thing exists at A and
>> at B both, right now. There is no GOING from one place to another, no
>> travel implied AT ALL.
>
> That is the green fairy interpretation.

Bullshit. It's NOT THAT HARD. Quantum states are SPREAD OVER SPACE.

If you are going to hold to some bonehead position that particles MUST
be localized to ONE place at a time and anything else MUST be green
fairies, MUST be magic, then of course you're going to set yourself up
for being incapable of learning anything.

> An infinite speed interpretation
> also works. Magic will work also.
>
> I think an (almost) infinite speed is the most plausible. I am not a
> magician, and maybe at next carnival a green fairy. Maybe.

What is plausible to you is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant. In
science, personal plausibility is worth no more than 2nd-hand toilet paper.

The ONLY thing that matters, is whether the predictions of the theory
match experiment, and whether it can make accurate predictions of
phenomena not yet seen.

If you want to advance a faster-than-light alternative, then you have a
job to do -- the same job that EVERY FUCKING PHYSICIST has. Show that it
matches current experimental data -- ALL relevant data -- and show that
it makes a testable prediction of something new that is feasibly
testable, using specified circumstances. Can't do that? Then you're just
belly-aching. "I can't BELIEVE quantum mechanics. I'd MUCH RATHER
believe FTL travel. Surely someone else can develop a theory that is
something I'd rather believe." Bullshit whiner.

>
> And infinite speed fits perfectly to having no inertia, in F=m*a, if
> the inertial
> mass goes to zero, you can have huge a's with almost no F.

F=ma is KNOWN not to work at high speed. Experimentally. You didn't know
that? That's a fucking problem!

>
>
>>>
>>> But infinite speed is also ftl.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Objects in nature really are spread out over space (and time), so
>>>> that being in two places at once does NOT imply FTL travel of a
>>>> localized object from over HERE to a localized object over
>>>> THERE.
>>>
>>> If it is not FTL, then it must be little green fairies.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is not that difficult to grasp.
>
> I not only grasp it, but also explain it. Mechanistically and
> intuitively. It just needs ftl.

No, you do not understand QUANTUM MECHANICS. What you are claiming to
understand is a tiny handful of OBSERVATIONS, and at that you only
understand them at a superficial and qualitative manner. You most
certainly do not understand how QUANTUM MECHANICS accounts for those
observations both qualitatively and quantitatively, and you sure as fuck
don't know anything about other critical observations that quantum
mechanics gets right.

>
>> Calling it little
>> green fairies because you don't want to spend the time learning what
>> it means is not really a legitimate tactic.
>
> Quantum mechanics is meaningless without ftl.

Bullfuckingshit. What you can say is that the only way YOU can
personally understand things is with FTL. This does not mean that other
people are so limited. The phenomena you describe are completely
understandable WITHOUT ftl. You clearly are completely unfamiliar with
those explanations and refuse to try to find them.

>
>>>
>>> I think I will stick to FTL.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is also where Einstein fell down. He believed that a
>>>> two-particle system exhibited the principle of locality -- that
>>>> the two objects really existed independently in two separable
>>>> locations. Quantum mechanics, however, correctly treats certain
>>>> two particle systems as ONE state, spread out over space, so that
>>>> there is no principle of locality respected. Thus, quantum
>>>> entanglement simply means that something that affects the SINGLE
>>>> quantum state over HERE also affecgts that SAME quantum state
>>>> over THERE, without implying anything about a signal that has to
>>>> go from a localized entity over HERE to another localized entity
>>>> over THERE.
>>>
>>> So they are connected with a subliminal connection that signals at
>>> FTL speeds ?
>>
>> No. They are ONE state. NOT two states connected with a connection.
>
> One non-localized state, thus one state, with two ends, and something
> that signals when the end of one state gets disturbed to the other end?

No. Not two parts of a compound system. ONE STATE. One extended state.
NOTHING needs to be signaled from one end to the other to change the
WHOLE state.

You just are not getting this.

It would help if you spent a little time learning the BASICS of quantum
mechanics, so that this concept doesn't elude you so badly.

>
> Semantics....
>
> And nobody knowing what is actually happening under the hood ?
>>
>>>
>>> Ftl for dummies : you have light travelling horizontally at c at
>>> sea level. One meter above the light travels somewhat faster. Look
>>> : FTL again.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know, Space is bigger there, and clocks run faster.
>>>
>>>> Until you recognize what quantum mechanics is saying at a
>>>> fundamental level about this, you will not capture the
>>>> distinction.
>>>
>>> You make a total artificial distinction. I order for QM to do what
>>> it does, it has to do FTL.
>>
>> Not at all. You just miss the point of what quantum mechanics is
>> saying.
>
> You just want to miss the point.

You aren't making one. You are claiming that QM RELIES on ftl, which is
an outright LIE based on ignorance. You are claiming that the ONLY WAY
to understand these phenomena is with FTL, which is flat wrong, as
quantum mechanics (something you do not understand) explains these
phenomena WITHOUT ftl.

>
>> It does not good to dismiss a basic concept and insist that
>> quantum mechanics is saying something else entirely.
>
> Do you have a better way of explaining QM than with FTL ?

YES! That's the whole FUCKING POINT!
Quantum mechanics in NO WAY uses FTL, and it is perfectly capable of
explaining these phenomena without it.

If you do not understand what quantum mechanics SAYS and how it can
explain these things WITHOUT FTL, then it's time you FUCKING LEARNED
quantum mechanics.

If your complaint is that you don't want to spend the effort, and that
everything is so much easier to understand just using FTL rather than
just spending the effort, and therefore that which is easier for you to
swallow must somehow be BETTER, then you have completely missed the
WHOLE FUCKING POINT of how science chooses one theory over another.

>
> wave particle duality :
> ftl -the particle weaves the wave at ftl speeds.

You don't even fucking know that wave-particle duality means. Wouldn't
you like to learn?

>
> particle at two points at the same time
> easy to explain with ftl.
>
> collapse of the wave function:
> the moment the particle is "caught" or "measured" it can no longer weave
> the wave, and the wave function collapses.
>
>>>
>>> So, I guess your prediction is "NO FTL in the next 5 years" ?
>>
>> Not with a signal passed at FTL.
>
> Suppose we use three Zeilinger setups : 1-2-3.

That's not passing a signal.

>
> In order to signal something, we can disturb in a different sequence,
> 3!, thus we can already transmit 6 different signals.
>
> You already lost.

Bullshit. You don't have a fucking clue what's going on here.

Sorry, but your superficial grip on this stuff isn't cutting it.

>
>
> Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 7/31/2012 5:40 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/30/12 7/30/12 - 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> Either there is something that is FTL or there
>> is no entanglement.
>
> In addition to not understanding the very basics of SR, you clearly do
> not understand quantum mechanics, either.
>
> You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you STUDY.

If you would have studied modern physics then you would have known that
nobody understands.

Studying is something else than learning to parrot textbooks.

> Posting nonsense to the 'net is just wasting your time. GO STUDY. Learn
> something about the subject before attempting to write about it.

Posting nonsense to the web is like asking questions to a teacher.

Many turn here in desperation to understand more. They seek
understanding, and not textbook parrots. They read the textbooks and
were not satisfied with them.

At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had to
do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who where
both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one said that
it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one said there was an
age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.

I concluded then that the science was not settled.

And today, it is still called : the twin paradox.

The discussion rages on, especially here, on this NG.

For me, the science is finally settled. A preferred frame and FTL solves
all the paradoxes, and is in accord with all experiments.

Uwe Hayek.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:34:48 AM UTC-7, Uwe Hayek wrote:

> FTL is a fact, Relativity is dead.
>

Faster than light is fudged. Einsteinian mass resistance proves it.
Neutrinos are Gamma infinity motion.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/1/2012 9:51 PM, Big Dog wrote:

>
> No sir. It's not complicated to understand why quantum mechanics
> works this way.

Then explain it !

I am VERY interested in your interpretation !

>>
>> Even Zeilinger is clueless : (2) Discovery HD - Through the
>> Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, aired in Europe march, 22, 2012,
>> 00-00-00 GMT , episode �How does the Universe Work ?� : (0:15:48 -
>> 0:16:07)
>>
>> Anton Zeilinger : �The message here is, that we have quantum
>> physics now around for nearly 100 years and we are still working at
>> the foundations, and that tells me that when we found it, it will
>> be an absolute revelation. It will be something different from what
>> we have been thinking.�
>> http://www.inertia-notime.com/Videos/Quantum%20Mechanics-Anton%20Zeilinger%20-%20Absolute%20Revelation.mp4
>>
>>
>
> And he's off the mark.

A man recognized as "The world's leading Quantum Experimentalist" ? Off
the mark ?

>
> You must have this internal voice that tells you, "If someone else
> can understand it, then surely I could understand it. Since I can't
> understand it, then it must be true that nobody understands it. Let
> me see if I can find someone else that can't understand it to prove
> my point."

You do not have a clue where science currently stands on explaining QM.

QUOTE
"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men
understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever
was such a time. ... On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that
no one understands quantum mechanics. ... Do not keep saying to
yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, `But how can it be like that?',
because you will get `down the drain' into a blind alley from which
nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." -- R. P.
Feynman (1967a)
UNQUOTE.

Yep, Feynman is of your mark too.

>
> Bullshit. It's NOT THAT HARD.

> Quantum states are SPREAD OVER SPACE.

By Green Fairies, no doubt about that.

Do you know the name of the pills you take ?

> If you are going to hold to some bonehead position that particles
> MUST be localized to ONE place at a time

I did not say that : I said the non-locality is due to (almost) infinite
speeds, unmeasurable to us. I am pleading absolute non-determinism. A
particle at infinite speed has no determined position.

> and anything else MUST be green fairies, MUST be magic, then of
> course you're going to set yourself up for being incapable of
> learning anything.

You do the magic and the fairies, as you do not accept a simple,
mechanistic, physical interpretation. Ftl is physical, accepting that a
particle is at two points at the same time, without physical
explanation, is green fairyland.

But, I am beginning to doubt you even can understand.

>> An infinite speed interpretation also works. Magic will work
>> also.
>>
>> I think an (almost) infinite speed is the most plausible. I am not
>> a magician, and maybe at next carnival a green fairy. Maybe.
>
> What is plausible to you is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant. In
> science, personal plausibility is worth no more than 2nd-hand toilet
> paper.

I remember that you are the guy that rejected Newton because he was a
"Natural Philosopher".

If you can reject Newton on semantics, what else is NEXT ?

>
> The ONLY thing that matters, is whether the predictions of the theory
> match experiment, and whether it can make accurate predictions of
> phenomena not yet seen.
>
> If you want to advance a faster-than-light alternative, then you have
> a job to do -- the same job that EVERY FUCKING PHYSICIST has. Show
> that it matches current experimental data -- ALL relevant data -- and
> show that it makes a testable prediction of something new that is
> feasibly testable, using specified circumstances. Can't do that? Then
> you're just belly-aching. "I can't BELIEVE quantum mechanics. I'd
> MUCH RATHER believe FTL travel. Surely someone else can develop a
> theory that is something I'd rather believe." Bullshit whiner.

First : I do not "believe" in ANYTHING. But QM is proven in experiments.
I just explain these experiments. With FTL, and even worse : with
"infinite" speeds.

>
>>
>> And infinite speed fits perfectly to having no inertia, in F=m*a,
>> if the inertial mass goes to zero, you can have huge a's with
>> almost no F.
>
> F=ma is KNOWN not to work at high speed. Experimentally. You didn't
> know that? That's a fucking problem!

So, now YOU KNOW uncertainty ? Tell me, because I think that it still is
uncertain.

You just blather mantras.

>
> No, you do not understand QUANTUM MECHANICS.

You do ? Explain us !!!!!!

Please ! Please ????

"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men
understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever
was such a time. ... On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that
no one understands quantum mechanics. ... Do not keep saying to
yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, `But how can it be like that?',
because you will get `down the drain' into a blind alley from which
nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." -- R. P.
Feynman (1967a)

> What you are claiming to understand is a tiny handful of
> OBSERVATIONS,

Which ones ?

> and at that you only understand them at a superficial and qualitative
> manner.

That applies to you. You do not even understand that nobody understands
QM. Except me, of course.

> You most certainly do not understand how QUANTUM MECHANICS accounts
> for those observations both qualitatively and quantitatively, and you
> sure as fuck don't know anything about other critical observations
> that quantum mechanics gets right.

Could you be less cryptic ? Or do you want to hid your absolute
cluelessness ? It does not work, I already knew you were clueless.

But there was a chance, well I'd faster win the euromillions, that you
might have some real brain cells left, and were able to ... ok I give up..

>>
>>> Calling it little green fairies because you don't want to spend
>>> the time learning what it means is not really a legitimate
>>> tactic.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is meaningless without ftl.
>
> Bullfuckingshit. What you can say is that the only way YOU can
> personally understand things is with FTL.

Do you have a better way ?

> This does not mean that other people are so limited.

LGF's. Magic. Yes, I reject those. I actually do understand them, and
quite like them. In fairy tales and movies.

> The phenomena you describe are completely understandable WITHOUT ftl.
>

Please Explain... Please, now really please, please please ????

> You clearly are completely unfamiliar with those explanations and
> refuse to try to find them.

I found FTL. And yes those LGF's, I refuse to look for them.

>> One non-localized state, thus one state, with two ends, and
>> something that signals when the end of one state gets disturbed to
>> the other end?
>
> No. Not two parts of a compound system. ONE STATE. One extended
> state.

A state that is five miles long. Ok.

> NOTHING needs to be signaled from one end to the other to change the
> WHOLE state.

So the state, five miles long, gets changed instantly on both ends ?

>
> You just are not getting this.

If you say so.

>
> It would help if you spent a little time learning the BASICS of
> quantum mechanics, so that this concept doesn't elude you so badly.
>
>>
>> Semantics....

>> You just want to miss the point.
>

> You aren't making one. You are claiming that QM RELIES on ftl, which
> is an outright LIE based on ignorance.

It is an interpretation based on all the experiments I have seen on QM.

> You are claiming that the ONLY WAY to understand these phenomena is
> with FTL, which is flat wrong, as quantum mechanics (something you do
> not understand) explains these phenomena WITHOUT ftl.

Now really ?

>
>>
>>> It does not good to dismiss a basic concept and insist that
>>> quantum mechanics is saying something else entirely.
>>
>> Do you have a better way of explaining QM than with FTL ?
>
> YES! That's the whole FUCKING POINT! Quantum mechanics in NO WAY uses
> FTL, and it is perfectly capable of explaining these phenomena
> without it.

But you haven't got a clue how it explains it ?
Name me a scientist or a theory or interpretation that does this !

> If you do not understand what quantum mechanics SAYS and how it can
> explain these things WITHOUT FTL, then it's time you FUCKING LEARNED
> quantum mechanics.

Try for yourself, by all means, as you are clueless about the current
state of QM.
Zeilinger is NOT "off the mark", he just knows perfectly were the
science stands. And you clearly do not even have the slightest clue.

> If your complaint is that you don't want to spend the effort, and
> that everything is so much easier to understand just using FTL rather
> than just spending the effort, and therefore that which is easier for
> you to swallow must somehow be BETTER, then you have completely
> missed the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of how science chooses one theory over
> another.
>
>>
>> wave particle duality : ftl -the particle weaves the wave at ftl
>> speeds.
>
> You don't even fucking know that wave-particle duality means.
> Wouldn't you like to learn?

Would you ?

>
>>
>> particle at two points at the same time easy to explain with ftl.
>>
>> collapse of the wave function: the moment the particle is "caught"
>> or "measured" it can no longer weave the wave, and the wave
>> function collapses.
>>
>>>>
>>>> So, I guess your prediction is "NO FTL in the next 5 years" ?
>>>
>>> Not with a signal passed at FTL.
>>
>> Suppose we use three Zeilinger setups : 1-2-3.
>
> That's not passing a signal.

I had not completed my setup.

>
>>
>> In order to signal something, we can disturb in a different
>> sequence, 3!, thus we can already transmit 6 different signals.
>>
>> You already lost.
>
> Bullshit. You don't have a fucking clue what's going on here. Sorry,
> but your superficial grip on this stuff isn't cutting it.

Look who is talking.

I eagerly await your interpretation of QM.

In the mean time, I will publish mine.

I guess I will never read yours, I can be the next Einstein,
but you can only be the next Hayek...

by that time, maybe they start calling physicists natural pholosophers
again, so you will have to abhor your own title...


Uwe Hayek.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message

50199db3$0$6864$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl

> On 8/1/2012 9:51 PM, Big Dog wrote:

[snip]

> > Bullshit. You don't have a fucking clue what's going on here.
> > Sorry, but your superficial grip on this stuff isn't cutting it.
>
> Look who is talking.
>
> I eagerly await your interpretation of QM.
>
> In the mean time, I will publish mine.
>
> I guess I will never read yours, I can be the next Einstein,
> but you can only be the next Hayek...
>
> by that time, maybe they start calling physicists natural
> pholosophers again, so you will have to abhor your own title...
>
>
> Uwe Hayek.

Carry on, Vanhoof, you're close to your yearly orgasm.
Just a bit more.

Dirk Vdm

[Uwe Hayek]

If you say so, oh relativity master, I am totally not convinced.

But I am no longer spending time on this discussion, as you and Big Dog
refuse to throw in any valid argument.

Because you do not have any, except reciting fr0m your textbook.

>
>> In Newtonian dynamics it is easy to exchange time and distance for
>> a particle with a fixed speed. At any time we know its distance
>> traveled, and at any distance we know the time traveled.
>
> But Newtonian mechanics DOES NOT APPLY to the realm of elementary
> particles.

Another mantra. Maybe you should read on, where I make my point.

> That is, it is not a good model, and is easily refuted by the very
> experiments you attempt to reference and misinterpret: any experiment
> displaying quantum entanglement (including Zeiliger's).

Mostly it is displaying FTL,

"instant information sharing"

at 4:18 Freeman says "Faster, than the speed of light"

And yes, that is F T L .

>
> In modern physics, particles are not "very small BBs [#]", and they
> do not act at all like the particles of our everyday experience. In
> our best modern theories (QFTs such as the standard model), they are
> excitations of a (continuous) quantum field. At large scales and
> coarse-graining, they can be APPROXIMATELY localized and the their
> speed can be APPROXIMATELY measured [@];

> at small scales such measurements are not possible.

And I try, in utter vain, to explain you why.
While you say, that I think they can be measured.
Where did I say that ?
It is your contempt prior to even "watching" or "reading" let alone be
investigation (quid totally non) , that prevents you to utter something
else than nonsense.

> [#] A BB is a small metal sphere used in pistols and rifles powered
> by compressed air or CO2, about 4.5 mm in diameter.
>
> [@] The approximations involved are related to Heisenberg's
> uncertainty principle, and are due to the underlying CONTINUOUS field
> (its continuity prevents such measurements from being sharp).
>
>
> Like relativity theory, it is QUITE CLEAR that you do not understand
> quantum theory. You will never learn anything by posting nonsense to
> the 'net, you need to STUDY.

I think about nothing is quite clear to you, not even the word study,
which you totally confuse with rote learning.

> In particular, when you just discuss "FTL", you will remain confused
> by YOUR OWN lack of precision. What is relevant is FTL SIGNALING, and
> that has never been demonstrated.

Zeilingers experiment just did, and actually Aspect's did also. But you
terracentrists were able to epicycle it.

With Zeilinger's experiment, you will be unable to obfuscate.

>FTL correlations are consistent
> with the theory; yes, FTL correlations have been demonstrated, but
> that is consistent with both quantum theory and relativity.

Mumbo Jumbo.

Uwe Hayek.

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message

news:jvc7rb$ir6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
50199db3$0$6864$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl
> On 8/1/2012 9:51 PM, Big Dog wrote:

[snip]

===============================
XOR implies OR, doesn't it, Dork?
Bwahahahaha!
Carry on snipping, faggot.

[Uwe Hayek]

Hiv does not even exist, how can something that does not exist, cause aids ?

Look at this document, that was written to Gallo, the scientific
fraudster that "discovered" hiv.

from :
http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background

A. Letter from Dr. Gonda XE "Gonda, Matthew" , the Head of Electron
Microscopy at the NIH XE "National Institutes of Health" , to Popovic XE
"Popovic, Mikulas" , copied to Gallo XE "Gallo, Robert" . He reports
that images wanted for the Science papers, do not contain HIV XE "HIV"
(HTLVIII) a s Gallo had claimed, but only cellular rubbish. This was
received only 3 days before Gallo sent in the Science papers for
publication, When the papers appeared in print, they still contained
photos credited to Gonda, with Gallo saying they contain HIV.

Later, Eleni Papadopulos will state the same in this interview :
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

You and the scientific method ?

Laat me niet lachen !

Uwe Hayek.

[YBM]

Le 01.08.2012 21:25, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

> And infinite speed fits perfectly to having no inertia, in F=m*a, if
> the inertial
> mass goes to zero, you can have huge a's with almost no F.

Well, right. Just like you being a huge ass with almost no clue.

[YBM]

Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had to
> do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who where
> both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one said that
> it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one said there was an
> age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
> department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.

Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.

> I concluded then that the science was not settled.

You concluded, on this very point, wrong.

[hanson]

--[[[ Uwe 1 : YBMoron 0, zilch, nil & nada ]]]--
>
>
"YBM" aka "Your Basic Moron" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> __________
>
Uwe Hayek a �crit :

At university, we had a physics relativity "lab",
which meant we had to do exercises with relativity.
I witnessed two lab assistants, who where both
doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox:
one said that it was a paradox, no age difference,
and the other one said there was an age difference.
Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.

> __________

>
"YBM" aka "Your Basic Moron" wrote:
Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.

> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Long before the "bad teacher excuse" come
YBM's, "Your Basic Morons" like yourself
who can't explain what they believe & defend...
>
.. AND then argue amongst themselves as
to who has studied the SR/GR crap more
deeply, but do not even know that, in
Tom Roberts words:
>
_ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories" _, iow:
__ Relativity is a theory about a theory.__, iow:
+__ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"___
>
YBMs are known as Einstein Dingleberries
who worship Albert's sphincter and believe
everything that came out of Einstein's sorry
Gedanken-less experiments.
Xtian fundamentalists & Islamist Extremists
are also YBMs... Same MO. Same mentation.
>
YBM, You Basic Moron, thanks for the laughs
... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[hanson]

"Uwe Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:

--- Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
Vilas Tamhane wrote:
Either there is something that is FTL or there

is no entanglement. [1]
> _______

>
Tom Roberts wrote:
In addition to not understanding the very basics of SR,
you clearly do not understand quantum mechanics,
either. You have no hope of understanding modern
physics until you STUDY.

> ________

>
"Uwe Hayek" wrote:
If you would have studied modern physics then you
would have known that nobody understands. Studying
is something else than learning to parrot textbooks.

> ________

>
Tom Roberts wrote:
Posting nonsense to the 'net is just wasting your time.
GO STUDY. Learn something about the subject before
attempting to write about it.

> ________

>
"Uwe Hayek" wrote:
Posting nonsense to the web is like asking questions
to a teacher. Many turn here in desperation to
understand more. They seek understanding, and not
textbook parrots. They read the textbooks and were
not satisfied with them.
>
At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which
meant we had to do exercises with relativity.
I witnessed two lab assistants, who where both
doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox :
one said that it was a paradox, no age difference,
and the other one said there was an age difference.
Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB)
physics department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>
I concluded then that the science was not settled.
And today, it is still called : the twin paradox.
The discussion rages on, especially here, on this NG.
>
For me, the science is finally settled. A preferred frame
and FTL solves all the paradoxes, and is in accord with

all experiments. [2] -- Uwe Hayek.
> _______
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... Good one!, Uwe. Notice that Roberts
can ONLY say "Go study", because he cannot explain
it so that his SR/GR crap sells. Occasionally though,
geriatric Tom Roberts has a flash of lucidity, like when
he, [TR], posted:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
... to boot, Uwe and Vilas, you guys have the support
from the SR/GR originator, Einstein himself, who in
his final years became an outspoken SR/GR denier.
>
Early on Einstein knew & hinted that not all was kosher
in Relativity-Land, by him saying about his 1095 paper:
>
||AE|| The secret to creativity is knowing
|| AE|| how to hide your sources....
>
by which Einstein referred to the issue that the 1905 paper
was really the intellectual property of his wife Mileva Maric
to whom he, later on, had to fork over all of his Nobel loot,
as __HUSH MONEY__ to keep Mileva from singing!...
... ahaha...
>
Einstein started off in the 1905 paper & wrote:
>
||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
Then, during the next 3 decades when Einstein was riding
high on his Zionist financed wake that put and kept him
in the lime light, it became clearer that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts & lunacies
like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
|||AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... and Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space- time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein became clean
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
and furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the
wall, when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang onto & fanatically believe in all kind of
shit, which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" and
etc, etc... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
built that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it
and defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha.... ahahahahanson

[GogoJF]

Clearly, you are headed in the right direction. Bridgman said that
our "relativity" is dependent upon "an absolute view" with which our
senses- our measures would be completely irrelevant otherwise. .

[GogoJF]

As far as the human being is concerned, it is really about the
"size". If we look at the perspective of our "frame of reference"-
then everything is based on "size" whether macro or micro- this is
just our "limited reality".

[GogoJF]

Food for thought. In P.W. Bridgman's, "A Sophisticate's Primer Of
Relativity", chapter five entitled "Summary And Discussion" begins on
page 142, he states:

In his own words he states:

In the final chapter I shall try to gather together the main threads
running through the argument. We have tried to find a minimum point
of view which would read into the theory no more than is necessarily
implied in the various successful applications of the theory to
"concrete situations". We have accepted the theory as giving correct
experimental results and to that extent not needing criticism or
revision. But various conceptual attitudes toward the theory are
"possible" without "involving experimental inconsistencies". We have
been concerned here to find the conceptual attitude which would demand
the "least commitment on our part. The search for a minimum point of
view is "handicapped at the very start" by the implications in the
"accepted name of the the theory itself"- the theory of relativity.
There is supposed to be a deep philosophical principles back of this,
to the effect that "everything is relative" and in particular is
relative to the observer and his frame of reference. Superficial
justification of such an attitude may be offered by such easy
observations as that "position" means position of something with
respect to something else.

The name "relativity" and the attitude it naturally engenders are
unfortunate, because they make more difficult the realization of the
fundamental fact that there is an "absolute" background implicit in
the theory" without which "its very language is meaningless"

[toba...@gmail.com]

I'd say for the transport of energy quantum mechanics is classic. The principle of entanglement is silent on FTL.
For transportation information, clearly exceeds the speed of light. It is infinite.
Relativity says that nothing can exceed the speed of light and has always been right.
Now that's what current theories tell us:

Here's what to do:
1-Generalize the wave function in the universe as a principle
2-potential fields reinterpret
3-reinterpret quantum mechanics
4 - Deduct relativity by hidden variables
5-Understand how relativity
6-You thought you could not physically go faster than light? Surprise ...

I think it's done...

[Big Dog]

On 8/1/2012 7:39 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
> If it is not FTL, then it must be little green fairies.
>
> I think I will stick to FTL.

Fine. Tell you what.
There's an observation that 10 keV electrons fired ONE AT A TIME through
a diffraction lattice with spacing of 19 angstroms produces a pattern of
hits on a phosphor screen 2.5 m away from the lattice that is a series
of bands called a diffraction pattern.
1. Produce a qualitative explanation of how a SINGLE ELECTRON passing
through this lattice and exhibiting whatever kind of FTL behavior you
wish produces hits in this diffraction pattern.
2. Produce a quantitative prediction of how far apart the bands will be
on the screen.
3. Produce a single prediction of a new behavior that is not predicted
by QM, and demonstrate that with a description of a hypothetical but
realizable experimental setup and the outcome that would be seen in that
setup, by your FTL model.

When you do that, Hayek, you'll demonstrate that you know how to do
science. Until then, I ain't interested in your whining.

[Big Dog]

On 8/1/2012 2:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 5:40 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 7/30/12 7/30/12 - 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>> Either there is something that is FTL or there
>>> is no entanglement.
>>
>> In addition to not understanding the very basics of SR, you clearly do
>> not understand quantum mechanics, either.
>>
>> You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you STUDY.
>
> If you would have studied modern physics then you would have known that
> nobody understands.

That's simply wrong. I don't know where you got this crap.

>
> Studying is something else than learning to parrot textbooks.
>
>> Posting nonsense to the 'net is just wasting your time. GO STUDY. Learn
>> something about the subject before attempting to write about it.
>
> Posting nonsense to the web is like asking questions to a teacher.
>
> Many turn here in desperation to understand more. They seek
> understanding, and not textbook parrots. They read the textbooks and
> were not satisfied with them.

Then you need to avail yourself of OTHER modes of study. Usenet is the
WRONG channel for learning broad swaths of physics.

If the textbooks don't do it for you, then enroll in a class where you
can expect to question an expert until you ARE satisfied. Expect in
exchange that you will be required to do some work to become acquainted
with the basics. That work is INSTRUMENTAL to understanding how the
concepts work.

>
> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had to
> do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who where
> both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one said that
> it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one said there was an
> age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
> department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.

Then you had lousy fucking lab assistants, and you should have taken it
to someone who understood it better -- like the professors.

>
> I concluded then that the science was not settled.

That was the COMPLETELY WRONG conclusion.

>
> And today, it is still called : the twin paradox.

Yes, it is. But not because it's an open matter. It's NOT. It is
intended as a TEACHING EXERCISE, which one of your lab assistants
clearly did not get the point of.

>
> The discussion rages on, especially here, on this NG.

Same problem. You are watching a discussion involving bullshitters and
the uninformed, and you conclude from that discussion that the matter is
still unresolved. Go to a creationist conference and listen to
uninformed and bullshitters there, and you might come away with the
completely incorrect conclusion that evolution is still controversial.
Attend a newsgroup talking about conspiracies and you might come up with
the completely STUPID conclusion that we never landed on the moon.

>
> For me, the science is finally settled. A preferred frame and FTL solves
> all the paradoxes, and is in accord with all experiments.

You don't know anything about the details of any of the experiments.
There are no fucking paradoxes. There are teaching puzzles.

>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
>

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message

5019a718$0$6904$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl

Nice:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HIVdoesNotEvenExist.html
I hope that someday you will get infected with this nonexisting virus.

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
jve1sr$gpn$5...@speranza.aioe.org

> On 8/1/2012 2:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

[snip]

> > The discussion rages on, especially here, on this NG.
>
> Same problem. You are watching a discussion involving bullshitters
> and the uninformed, and you conclude from that discussion that the
> matter is still unresolved. Go to a creationist conference and
> listen to uninformed and bullshitters there, and you might come
> away with the completely incorrect conclusion that evolution is
> still controversial. Attend a newsgroup talking about conspiracies
> and you might come up with the completely STUPID conclusion that we
> never landed on the moon.

Be careful there, you already *ARE* dealing with a conspiracy nutter:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HIVdoesNotEvenExist.html

Dirk Vdm

[hanson]

... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA....
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Big-Dog-in-the-Big-House>
aka "Fat Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> barked
at Uwe Hayek from his padded kennel unit & wrote:
>
Hayeck, there are no fucking paradoxes. There are
teaching puzzles. You had lousy fucking lab assistants,

and you should have taken it to someone who

understood it better -- like the professors. Then you
need to avail yourself of OTHER modes of study...
[... until you agree with the opinions of the unemployed,
institutionalized, mentally ill Fat dog]
> _________
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... ROTFLMAO. The FAT MUTT sounds
like an Islamist Imam who tells folks that his Weltbild
is the only valid one because that is how the World
appears to be in his swollen, hydrocephalic Dog
Brain... ahahaha...
Hey Fatty, how come you have not convinced anybody
with your barking?.... Bark some more and keep on
licking Einstein's sphincter. Hilarious!.... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs you fanatic!... ahahahanson
> __________

[Uwe Hayek]

I hope that someday you realize that this is impossible.

But I advise you to get another shrink. The one you are seeing now is
doing you no good.

Uwe Hayek.

[wugi]

YBM wrote:
> Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a �crit :
>> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had
>> to do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who
>> where both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one
>> said that it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one
>> said there was an age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish
>> branch (VUB) physics department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>
> Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.

I had this prof some 5 years earlier. I don't remember his assistants, but
his teaching left me with a strong impression that he was able to go through
the (rather easy) algebra of SRT, without understanding the geometric
significance of it, at the very least not able (nor interested, as seems to
be some mainstream condition) to convey such an understanding. It was my
incentive to go and study SRT by myself and, yes, develop an own
geometrically intuitive axiom scheme producing the right results.

>> I concluded then that the science was not settled.
>
> You concluded, on this very point, wrong.

As on other points, eg FTL.
Funnily, FTL *does* exist, however *not* as the physical speeds intended,
but as a special case of observed speeds of "normal" relativistic movement.
Nicely developed on this site:
http://www.spacetimetravel.org/bewegung/bewegung.html
to be compared, on my Twin Paradox (!) site:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
with my Relasee program, eg, on longitudinal movement:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/LinearMovin.PNG
on a passing frontline or squadron:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/Squad.gif
and on passing (approaching vs receding) trains:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/animgif/RelaTrains.gif

guido

[Dirk Van de moortel]

wugi <wugi...@scarlet.be> wrote in message
jvepa9$cbk$1...@speranza.aioe.org
> YBM wrote:

You guys (I mean you and Vanhoof aka Hayek) should have come to
the RUG in Ghent where we had an *excellent* relativity course by
prof. Farizeau. And he he had *excellent* assistants.

Cheers, guido :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/2/2012 4:12 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 2:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 5:40 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 7/30/12 7/30/12 - 10:32 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>>> Either there is something that is FTL or there
>>>> is no entanglement.
>>>
>>> In addition to not understanding the very basics of SR, you clearly do
>>> not understand quantum mechanics, either.
>>>
>>> You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you STUDY.
>>
>> If you would have studied modern physics then you would have known that
>> nobody understands.
>
> That's simply wrong. I don't know where you got this crap.

I think the matter is resolved.

We live on a different planet.

Over and out.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/2/2012 4:12 PM, Big Dog wrote:

Perhaps changing your nick into "Mad Dog", will at least warn someone
trying to engage in a "discussion" with you.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/2/2012 2:44 AM, YBM wrote:

At all times some fools thought that all science was settled.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/2/2012 10:52 PM, wugi wrote:
> YBM wrote:
>> Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a �crit :
>>> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had
>>> to do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who
>>> where both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one
>>> said that it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one
>>> said there was an age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish
>>> branch (VUB) physics department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>>
>> Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.
>
> I had this prof some 5 years earlier. I don't remember his assistants, but
> his teaching left me with a strong impression that he was able to go through
> the (rather easy) algebra of SRT, without understanding the geometric
> significance of it, at the very least not able (nor interested, as seems to
> be some mainstream condition) to convey such an understanding. It was my
> incentive to go and study SRT by myself and,

How a bad professor can be a good thing.
Shortly after I got there, Ronsmans had a heart attack, and never
returned. His assistants then reigned supreme, and then this happened.

> yes, develop an own
> geometrically intuitive axiom scheme producing the right results.

This scheme is wrong. There is no mutual time dilation.

It is easy to find mathematical constructs that show this behavior, but
it is not physics.

I think I am unable to deprogram you on this subject, but a book
explaining this will be available on Amazon Kindle soon.

Uwe Hayek.

[YBM]

Le 05.08.2012 15:40, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

> On 8/2/2012 2:44 AM, YBM wrote:

>> Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

>>> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had to
>>> do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who where
>>> both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one said that
>>> it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one said there was an
>>> age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
>>> department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>>
>> Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.
>>
>>> I concluded then that the science was not settled.
>>
>> You concluded, on this very point, wrong.
>
> At all times some fools thought that all science was settled.

Not at all. There is no connection between my point and your answer.

You do have a HUGE cognitive dissonance, Mr. "Hayek".

[Uwe Hayek]

Judging by the results, I can only say "nein, danke".

The proof of the pudding is the eating D., and your views are not even
eatable, let alone digestable or palatable.

You are Totally FUBAR.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

D., I just *LOVE* it, when you mention this.

It just *PROVES* that you are uninformed parrot.

The other day I just pulled my bussiness partner, who knows about my
views on hiv-aids, and who became a dissident himself, the following
joke : "bad news", I said, "I've got AIDS". We both started laughing
immediately.

Of course, anyone holding orthodox views on hiv-aids, would not qualify
to be my business partner. I only accept people who are cherish the truth.

So, no jet for you D.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 8/5/2012 3:52 PM, YBM wrote:

> Le 05.08.2012 15:40, Uwe Hayek a écrit :
>> On 8/2/2012 2:44 AM, YBM wrote:

>>> Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a écrit :
>>>> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we had to
>>>> do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who where
>>>> both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one said that
>>>> it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one said there
>>>> was an
>>>> age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
>>>> department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>>>
>>> Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.
>>>
>>>> I concluded then that the science was not settled.
>>>
>>> You concluded, on this very point, wrong.
>>
>> At all times some fools thought that all science was settled.
>
> Not at all. There is no connection between my point and your answer.
>
> You do have a HUGE cognitive dissonance, Mr. "Hayek".

Monsieur YBM, do you even know what that means ?

I looked up on Google "Twin Paradox" and got 1 million hits.

The mainstream has not solved the twin paradox, and you are certainly
not able to solve it.

You fool yourself in thinking that you understand it, but I can assure
you, you don't.

And that is cognitive dissonance.

Another example of cognitive dissonance is believing that France has an
excellent economy.

Même penser que "ce n'est pas si mal". Les Allemands ne vont jaimais
vous dépanner, et ce sera la cata absolue.

Uwe Hayek.

[YBM]

Le 05.08.2012 16:22, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

> On 8/5/2012 3:52 PM, YBM wrote:

>> Le 05.08.2012 15:40, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

>>> On 8/2/2012 2:44 AM, YBM wrote:

>>>> Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

>>>>> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we
>>>>> had to
>>>>> do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab assistants, who
>>>>> where
>>>>> both doctoring in physics, fight over the twin paradox : one said that
>>>>> it was a paradox, no age difference, and the other one said there
>>>>> was an
>>>>> age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB) physics
>>>>> department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>>>>
>>>> Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.
>>>>
>>>>> I concluded then that the science was not settled.
>>>>
>>>> You concluded, on this very point, wrong.
>>>
>>> At all times some fools thought that all science was settled.
>>
>> Not at all. There is no connection between my point and your answer.
>>
>> You do have a HUGE cognitive dissonance, Mr. "Hayek".
>
> Monsieur YBM, do you even know what that means ?
>
> I looked up on Google "Twin Paradox" and got 1 million hits.
>
> The mainstream has not solved the twin paradox,

It is solved. As a matter of fact it has always been solved. Thy
is why it is called a "paradox" and not a "contradiction".

> [snip self-deluded nonsense]

[Big Dog]

But that doesn't mean that ALL science is unsettled.
And in the case of SR, the discussion of your bonehead TAs certainly
doesn't mean that SR is unsettled.

[Big Dog]

On 8/5/2012 9:22 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

> I looked up on Google "Twin Paradox" and got 1 million hits.

Sure. It's a VERY POPULAR puzzle used for the teaching of relativity.

>
> The mainstream has not solved the twin paradox, and you are certainly
> not able to solve it.

Of COURSE it's solved. On what fucking bonehead basis do you think it is
unsolved??? The fact that it is a very popular teaching puzzle? Do you
think that if it were solved, then there would be only a handful of hits
in Google?

Try Googling "Number line" and see how many hits you get. Does this mean
that it is a controversial subject?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 3:52 PM, YBM wrote:

>> Le 05.08.2012 15:40, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

>>> On 8/2/2012 2:44 AM, YBM wrote:

>>>> Le 01.08.2012 21:57, Uwe Hayek a �crit :

>>>>> At university, we had a physics relativity "lab", which meant we
>>>>> had to do exercises with relativity. I witnessed two lab
>>>>> assistants, who where both doctoring in physics, fight over the
>>>>> twin paradox : one said that it was a paradox, no age difference,
>>>>> and the other one said there was an
>>>>> age difference. Brussels Free University, Flemish branch (VUB)
>>>>> physics department of Philippe Ronsmans, 1978.
>>>>
>>>> Classic one. Bad teacher as an excuse.
>>>>
>>>>> I concluded then that the science was not settled.
>>>>
>>>> You concluded, on this very point, wrong.
>>>
>>> At all times some fools thought that all science was settled.
>>
>> Not at all. There is no connection between my point and your answer.
>>
>> You do have a HUGE cognitive dissonance, Mr. "Hayek".
>
> Monsieur YBM, do you even know what that means ?
>
> I looked up on Google "Twin Paradox" and got 1 million hits.

Vanhoof does science by google hits.
I looked up "God exists" and it got 5 million hits.
So as from Hayek is a believer. Congratulations.

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/31/12 7/31/12 - 2:53 PM, Ilja wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. Juli 2012 23:21:12 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
>> As I said before, quantum entanglement CANNOT be used to send signals
>> faster than the speed of light; quantum entanglement DOES NOT refute
>> relativity.
>>
>> Remember the mantra: correlation is not causation. You are confusing a
>> quantum CORRELATION (aka entanglement) with causation (sending a signal or
>> influence).
>
> But there is also another mantra in science: If there is a non-trivial
> correlation, it requires a causal explanation.

Hmmmm. That is not nearly as general or important as the one I gave, but OK. In
an EPR/Bell experiment, the "causation" travels with the particles, not between
them. That is, the properties that are subject to entanglement are not local to
individual particles. Note that not all properties of a particle pair can be
entangled.


> But if you require a realistic causal explanation of quantum correlations,
> relativity is dead - because of the violation of Bell's inequality.

You forgot the third (and probably most important) requirement: locality. As
long as the entangled properties are not local to the individual particles,
relativity is not "dead".


> QED is not a complete realistic theory,
> it does not give a realistic explanation, it gives only prescriptions how to
> compute some probabilities, without any explanation.

I'm not certain how you use the word "realistic". But in any case, at this
level, "explanations" are outside the realm of science. The best we can hope for
is models that accurately predict the behavior of experiments. Such as QED.


Tom Roberts

[David Fuller]

No
Not FTL
still Traveling at c, through a portion of the universe that is less light years across.

A saddle shaped universe with both curves to one side, not right and left, creating a curved parallel universe.

Wrapped around it self 28 times.
We are between the 27th and 28th wrap.
Pressure is still near quark confinement.

A neutron is a gravity well that an electron will pass through in 881 seconds and return to a proton.

Our octave or layer would be 881 seconds thick.
If all protons are expected to decay at the same moment, this would be logical. The protons / neutrons are part of one singular wrap of the universe, the 27 to 28 wrap.

Each wrap compresses the energy density by a factor of eight or an "octave".

8 to the 28th power is within RMS of the speed of light cubed.

The octaves resolve FTL travel just the same as electrons switching electron orbital shells

The heisenburb uncertainty principle is "not" uncertainty but harmonics.

[wugi]

Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 9:22 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
>> I looked up on Google "Twin Paradox" and got 1 million hits.
>
> Sure. It's a VERY POPULAR puzzle used for the teaching of relativity.
>
>>
>> The mainstream has not solved the twin paradox, and you are certainly
>> not able to solve it.
>
> Of COURSE it's solved. On what fucking bonehead basis do you think it
> is unsolved???

One can try one time, two times, but not n times for n=>infinity, to
convince irr�cup�rables like Uwe and his likes ;-)

guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"wugi" <wugi...@scarlet.be> wrote in message news:k381d3$vns$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 9:22 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
>> I looked up on Google "Twin Paradox" and got 1 million hits.
>
> Sure. It's a VERY POPULAR puzzle used for the teaching of relativity.
>
>>
>> The mainstream has not solved the twin paradox, and you are certainly
>> not able to solve it.
>
> Of COURSE it's solved. On what fucking bonehead basis do you think it
> is unsolved???

One can try one time, two times, but not n times for n=>infinity, to

convince irrécupérables like Uwe and his likes ;-)

guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

=================================================

 

Length of train 1 kilometre at rest.

Locomotive passes green signal, turns it red,

caboose passes same red signal 1 minute later.

At what speed did the signal pass the train?  Answer:  v’ = x’/t’

At what speed did the locomotive pass one kilometre of track? Answer v = x/t = 60 kph.

x’ = x/sqrt(1- (x/t)^2/c^2)

t’ = t * sqrt(1- (x/t)^2/c^2)

v’ = x’/t’

 

Why is the speed the locomotive passes over x’ of track, v’ = x’/t’

different to the speed the signal passes over x of train, v = x/t?

 

Of COURSE it's NOT solved. On what fucking bonehead basis do you think it
is solved, you fucking clueless arse-licking moron and your likes???

 

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Ilja]

Am Dienstag, 14. August 2012 14:38:53 UTC schrieb tjrob137:
> On 7/31/12 7/31/12 - 2:53 PM, Ilja wrote:
> > Am Montag, 30. Juli 2012 23:21:12 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> >> As I said before, quantum entanglement CANNOT be used to send signals
> >> faster than the speed of light; quantum entanglement DOES NOT refute
> >> relativity.

> >> Remember the mantra: correlation is not causation. You are confusing a
> >> quantum CORRELATION (aka entanglement) with causation (sending a signal or
> >> influence).

> > But there is also another mantra in science: If there is a non-trivial
> > correlation, it requires a causal explanation.

> Hmmmm. That is not nearly as general or important as the one I gave, but OK.

I disagree. What remains of science, if, whatever happens, can be ignored by
"oh, this is only a correlation, so what"? The search for realistic, causal explanations of observed correlations is the main job of science. Ignoring
observed correlations would be quite fatal for science almost everywhere.

Roughly speaking, you can doubt that astrological theory predicts correct correlations. But there would be no other difference between the remains of science after giving up the search for realistic explanations and astrology.

> > But if you require a realistic causal explanation of quantum correlations,
> > relativity is dead - because of the violation of Bell's inequality.

> You forgot the third (and probably most important) requirement: locality.
> As long as the entangled properties are not local to the
> individual particles, relativity is not "dead".

Sorry, but the correlation which requires explanation is not at all one between
particle properties. It is a correlation between the free decisions of experimenters what to measure and the outcome of the measurements.

Moreover, locality is only an euphemism for Einstein causality. A misleading one, because there may be local theories with other maximal speed of distribution of information.

> > QED is not a complete realistic theory,
> > it does not give a realistic explanation, it gives only prescriptions how to
> > compute some probabilities, without any explanation.

> I'm not certain how you use the word "realistic". But in any case, at this
> level, "explanations" are outside the realm of science. The best we can hope
> for is models that accurately predict the behavior of experiments.
> Such as QED.

I use the word "realistic" in the well-defined meaning as used in the proof
of Bell's theorem. For details see
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/definition.php

And, of course, we can hope for realistic theories. Not only hope, but such
theories are already known. In the case of quantum theory, we have, for example, the completely realistic de Broglie-Bohm theory.