Faster than light observed at NASA.

[Frannie]

Lol, be my guest and demonstrate abiogenesis

Abiogenesis, what ever it was, followed laws of chemistry. Superluminal information transfer does not.

What laws of chemistry? Abiogenesis does not happen outside the cell. It's chemistry inside the cell. Atheists are usually wrong.

All the laws of any and every chemical reaction. No chemical reaction can produce complicated or very simple code. Only intelligence does this

Not intelligence. The design of the system shows intelligence behind it. Only life can begat other life. Only through a living cell, can a chemical reaction occur to align the DNA to form another living organism. This is impossible outside the cell. Even if you have the same chemicals outside the cell, it does not happen. This was shown by experiment, too. With Darwin, he was handed a living cell in order to explain how ToE works.

Darwin is irrelevant, he never saw or dreamed of DNA, he thought life formed in a pool of goo

 

[james bond]

Yea you did say that entanglement can not be used for communication.

Look don't fret, no one has ever beaten me, so you never had the chance really.

You will adjust, I adjusted a couple of law firms and the feds too.

I would agree with Wuwei, so he won that argument. Entanglement can't be used for instant communication, but it would definitely be cool if it can. All we know is its behavior. I can't remember how Hawking was using it at the event horizon of a black hole, but it was just a thought experiment.

That said, CERN is using it to see if there are other dimensions, so quantum particles could give us more information on how gravity and our universe works.

 

[Frannie]

Yea you did say that entanglement can not be used for communication.

Look don't fret, no one has ever beaten me, so you never had the chance really.

You will adjust, I adjusted a couple of law firms and the feds too.

I would agree with Wuwei, so he won that argument. Entanglement can't be used for instant communication, but it would definitely be cool if it can. All we know is its behavior. I can't remember how Hawking was using it at the event horizon of a black hole, but it was just a thought experiment.

That said, CERN is using it to see if there are other dimensions, so quantum particles could give us more information on how gravity and our universe works.

You are a numbnut, woo woo lost and he admitted it when I posted the information THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT BY ENTANGLEMENT

AGAIN HERE IS THE INFORMATION ALREADY SENT AS AN IMAGE
This is not a debate, information has already been sent by entanglement, I was, am and always will be right in this.

 

[james bond]

Probability is real. Particulate electrons (and photons) are simply not.

No less of an authority than Albert Einstein was always uncomfortable with the whole wave function/probability distribution/fundamental uncertainty "thing" which is central to quantum mechanics. As he once famously said, "God does not play dice". However, the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics comes straight from the basic mathematics of the theory, and as Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, "God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen".

The theory of quantum mechanics can be reformatted, so to speak, such that the electron does have a specific, but unknown position, as opposed to being everywhere at once with differing probabilities. Such theories are called hidden variable theories, for the obvious reason. In most situations standard quantum mechanics and the hidden variable theories predict exactly the same thing, so there isn't much practical difference between the two. However, there are complicated, somewhat exotic situations in which they do not predict the same outcome, and physicists have examined these. The experiments are challenging to carry out, and one or two have in fact seemed to favor hidden variables over quantum mechanics. However, the great bulk of the experiments favor standard quantum mechanics, and as time goes by quantum mechanics is lengthening its lead over hidden variables. It would seem that the Universe is perfectly happy to be a place where "particles", at the most smallest and most fundamental level, simply do not exist.

>>Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, "God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen".<<

God does not play dice. Furthermore, I think that's Bohr's model of an electron on the left.

 

[Frannie]

Probability is real. Particulate electrons (and photons) are simply not.

No less of an authority than Albert Einstein was always uncomfortable with the whole wave function/probability distribution/fundamental uncertainty "thing" which is central to quantum mechanics. As he once famously said, "God does not play dice". However, the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics comes straight from the basic mathematics of the theory, and as Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, "God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen".

The theory of quantum mechanics can be reformatted, so to speak, such that the electron does have a specific, but unknown position, as opposed to being everywhere at once with differing probabilities. Such theories are called hidden variable theories, for the obvious reason. In most situations standard quantum mechanics and the hidden variable theories predict exactly the same thing, so there isn't much practical difference between the two. However, there are complicated, somewhat exotic situations in which they do not predict the same outcome, and physicists have examined these. The experiments are challenging to carry out, and one or two have in fact seemed to favor hidden variables over quantum mechanics. However, the great bulk of the experiments favor standard quantum mechanics, and as time goes by quantum mechanics is lengthening its lead over hidden variables. It would seem that the Universe is perfectly happy to be a place where "particles", at the most smallest and most fundamental level, simply do not exist.

>>Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, "God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen".<<

God does not play dice. Furthermore, I think that's Bohr's model of an electron on the left.

So what?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Probability is real. Particulate electrons (and photons) are simply not.

No less of an authority than Albert Einstein was always uncomfortable with the whole wave function/probability distribution/fundamental uncertainty "thing" which is central to quantum mechanics. As he once famously said, "God does not play dice". However, the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics comes straight from the basic mathematics of the theory, and as Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, "God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen".

The theory of quantum mechanics can be reformatted, so to speak, such that the electron does have a specific, but unknown position, as opposed to being everywhere at once with differing probabilities. Such theories are called hidden variable theories, for the obvious reason. In most situations standard quantum mechanics and the hidden variable theories predict exactly the same thing, so there isn't much practical difference between the two. However, there are complicated, somewhat exotic situations in which they do not predict the same outcome, and physicists have examined these. The experiments are challenging to carry out, and one or two have in fact seemed to favor hidden variables over quantum mechanics. However, the great bulk of the experiments favor standard quantum mechanics, and as time goes by quantum mechanics is lengthening its lead over hidden variables. It would seem that the Universe is perfectly happy to be a place where "particles", at the most smallest and most fundamental level, simply do not exist.

>>Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, "God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen".<<

God does not play dice. Furthermore, I think that's Bohr's model of an electron on the left.

Yes, that's the classic Bohr model. That kids are still being indoctrinated with that crap is a crime. The realistic model is the one on the right.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So what?

Electrons do not exist (as particles).
Gods neither for that matter (as supernatural planners or actors).

In that sense James is correct. "God does not play dice." Dice exist.

 

[Frannie]

So what?

Electrons do not exist (as particles).
Gods neither for that matter (as supernatural planners or actors).

In that sense James is correct. "God does not play dice." Dice exist.

God brought life to the Earth, once life leaves the Earth by the hand of man, God is proved. Since we are here now, God is already proved

 

[ReinyDays]

c is taken to be in a "vacuum" and thus maximal where gases are thin, no? Why would the Aether be thicker?

There is no vacuum if there's æther ... that's the Crackpot part of this ... there's a mysterious and incredible substance that permeates the universe that doesn't interact with electro-magnetic radiation, it only propagates the waves ... the same as air is unaffected by the passage of sound waves ... the only way possible to detect the æther is to see if has any gravitation effects ...

 

[Frannie]

c is taken to be in a "vacuum" and thus maximal where gases are thin, no? Why would the Aether be thicker?

There is no vacuum if there's æther ... that's the Crackpot part of this ... there's a mysterious and incredible substance that permeates the universe that doesn't interact with electro-magnetic radiation, it only propagates the waves ... the same as air is unaffected by the passage of sound waves ... the only way possible to detect the æther is to see if has any gravitation effects ...

Or see if it can be made into cake icing

 

[Grumblenuts]

If I had a tail I would chase it in a circle and not be a man. Since I have no tail fallacious reasoning is no reasoning at all.

c is taken to be in a "vacuum" and thus maximal where gases are thin, no? Why would the Aether be thicker?

There is no vacuum if there's æther ... that's the Crackpot part of this ... there's a mysterious and incredible substance that permeates the universe that doesn't interact with electro-magnetic radiation, it only propagates the waves ... the same as air is unaffected by the passage of sound waves ... the only way possible to detect the æther is to see if has any gravitation effects ...

Agreed. That's why I put "vacuum" in quotes. The Aether is ubiquitous though it varies in density. It is the necessary medium for EM wave travel. Why do you think it would be thicker (more dense) far from the theoretical center and why would the light go faster? Light measureably slows in glass, for example. Interestingly, sound waves go faster through solids.

 

[Frannie]

If I had a tail I would chase it in a circle and not be a man. Since I have no tail fallacious reasoning is no reasoning at all.

c is taken to be in a "vacuum" and thus maximal where gases are thin, no? Why would the Aether be thicker?

There is no vacuum if there's æther ... that's the Crackpot part of this ... there's a mysterious and incredible substance that permeates the universe that doesn't interact with electro-magnetic radiation, it only propagates the waves ... the same as air is unaffected by the passage of sound waves ... the only way possible to detect the æther is to see if has any gravitation effects ...

Agreed. That's why I put "vacuum" in quotes. The Aether is ubiquitous though it varies in density. It is the necessary medium for EM wave travel. Why do you think it would be thicker (more dense) far from the theoretical center and why would the light go faster? Light measureably slows in glass, for example. Interestingly, sound waves go faster through solids.

Either comes in can

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thus the spelling of Aether.

 

[ReinyDays]

Agreed. That's why I put "vacuum" in quotes. The Aether is ubiquitous though it varies in density. It is the necessary medium for EM wave travel. Why do you think it would be thicker (more dense) far from the theoretical center and why would the light go faster? Light measureably slows in glass, for example. Interestingly, sound waves go faster through solids.

The universe was smaller when the light was emitted, and the æther was denser ... now the universe has expanded thinning out the æther ... it remains to be seen if the æther can be concentrated by gravity, and hopefully not as much as normal stuff ... and glass is normal stuff, it's not magical like æther is ... if you're going to be throwing counter-examples at me, I'll need some time to answer ... I'm kinda making this up as I go ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Agreed. That's why I put "vacuum" in quotes. The Aether is ubiquitous though it varies in density. It is the necessary medium for EM wave travel. Why do you think it would be thicker (more dense) far from the theoretical center and why would the light go faster? Light measureably slows in glass, for example. Interestingly, sound waves go faster through solids.

The universe was smaller when the light was emitted, and the æther was denser ... now the universe has expanded thinning out the æther ... it remains to be seen if the æther can be concentrated by gravity, and hopefully not as much as normal stuff ... and glass is normal stuff, it's not magical like æther is ... if you're going to be throwing counter-examples at me, I'll need some time to answer ... I'm kinda making this up as I go ...

From what I've gathered the Aether was just the Aether before any Bang and is generally more dense in the presence of mass because it's always attempting to permeate it more than it has already. Gravity. No mass? No Aether. "Black Hole." Visible window into counterspace. Tremendously dense Aether all around creating new spiraling mass like crazy.

 

[james bond]

Yea you did say that entanglement can not be used for communication.

Look don't fret, no one has ever beaten me, so you never had the chance really.

You will adjust, I adjusted a couple of law firms and the feds too.

I would agree with Wuwei, so he won that argument. Entanglement can't be used for instant communication, but it would definitely be cool if it can. All we know is its behavior. I can't remember how Hawking was using it at the event horizon of a black hole, but it was just a thought experiment.

That said, CERN is using it to see if there are other dimensions, so quantum particles could give us more information on how gravity and our universe works.

You are a numbnut, woo woo lost and he admitted it when I posted the information THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT BY ENTANGLEMENT

AGAIN HERE IS THE INFORMATION ALREADY SENT AS AN IMAGE
This is not a debate, information has already been sent by entanglement, I was, am and always will be right in this.

Oh gawd, you're still stuck on this cat image? It's only one-time, one-way communication. Let's say at noon, we both agree to each do our part of the experiment. You shoot the red photons towards the cat stencil while I shoot the yellow photons to the camera. This way I can see what you sent. However, it's only good for that one time and I got the reverse image. It's very limited communications. If there was some way for you to gather up the red photons while I gather up the yellow ones, then I can shoot it through a stencil and then you shoot it towards a camera. Not really practical.

 

[Frannie]

Yea you did say that entanglement can not be used for communication.

Look don't fret, no one has ever beaten me, so you never had the chance really.

You will adjust, I adjusted a couple of law firms and the feds too.

I would agree with Wuwei, so he won that argument. Entanglement can't be used for instant communication, but it would definitely be cool if it can. All we know is its behavior. I can't remember how Hawking was using it at the event horizon of a black hole, but it was just a thought experiment.

That said, CERN is using it to see if there are other dimensions, so quantum particles could give us more information on how gravity and our universe works.

You are a numbnut, woo woo lost and he admitted it when I posted the information THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT BY ENTANGLEMENT

AGAIN HERE IS THE INFORMATION ALREADY SENT AS AN IMAGE
This is not a debate, information has already been sent by entanglement, I was, am and always will be right in this.

Oh gawd, you're still stuck on this cat image? It's only one-time, one-way communication. Let's say at noon, we both agree to each do our part of the experiment. You shoot the red photons towards the cat stencil while I shoot the yellow photons to the camera. This way I can see what you sent. However, it's only good for that one time and I got the reverse image. It's very limited communications. If there was some way for you to gather up the red photons while I gather up the yellow ones, then I can shoot it through a stencil and then you shoot it towards a camera. Not really practical.

They had 5g internet 30 years ago right

Kid I am investing in quantum

You quote the science books

I'm investing in new ones

 

[Grumblenuts]

The universe was smaller when the light was emitted, and the æther was denser ... now the universe has expanded thinning out the æther ... it remains to be seen if the æther can be concentrated by gravity,

So backing up, the concept of the universe, being everything by definition - "expanding" - is pretty silly on its face. Seems best to presume the Aether a constant in total (with variable density), the Universe (or "universes") within its bounds; what we experience as "space" being volumes of Aether where mass may come to exist and disappear again. A constant dielectric-magneto electric exchange going on to some extent at every scale. Naturally "quantized" because the Aether itself has mass (thus "dark matter"). Protons resulting naturally from unstable neutrons, everything vibrates in accord with proton energy exchange harmonics at root. "Energy" being our localized detection or measurement of ever ongoing dielectric and magnetic field exchanges through and enabled by the Aether.

"when the light was emitted"

Such a biblical presumption. "The light" being all the EM energy and matter we detect emanating from the Bang? Perhaps so. Locally. I tend to believe our scientifically observable "Universe" just a dot in the actual Universe which may regenerate on an unimaginably massive scale. "Bangs" going on constantly, all within The Aether, unnoticeable to any observer due to the vast distances between. But we haven't even begun talking about the ramifications of longitudinal waves. The real means of producing "action at a distance."

"glass is normal stuff, it's not magical like æther is"

The Aether strikes me as no more magical than water. Perhaps even less so. Gods and Easter Bunnies are magical.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think I have to stop here ... I'm new around here and don't want to get into trouble hijacking threads ... plus you got me claiming the expanding universe is evidence that the universe isn't expanding ... very unprofessional of me ...

I'm kinda on-board here with Frannie ... zapping house cats with yellow photons sound fun ... my own furry little bastard needs this ... but I digress ... the principle of transferring information instantaneously has been around for a while, if we have a pair of couple electrons 20 light years apart, just observing the quantum state of the one guaranties the other is in the opposite state, we don't have to wait 20 years, it happens immediately ... there's some technical issues, specifically how to get electrons 20 light years apart to couple, we might have to couple them locally and send half off using normal means ... I think it was Stephen Hawkins who noted that if this was possible, then Earth would be overrun with tourists ... but I do think we should continue zapping cats with high energy particles ... who knows what great discoveries can be made ...

I've always found that those who debate evolution vs creation know very little of either ... AFAIK, we still don't know what Chemical X is, and there's not that many possibilities ... good luck trying to get a peacemaker to say what exact was created in the beginning ... as a Christian I'm quick to admit I have no idea which is true, but I'll drink a cup of franken-coffee while planning how to help feed the hungry today ... I guess that makes me a hypocrite ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Welcome aboard, if I haven't said so already.
- "Chemical X"? Seriously?
-"if we have a pair of couple electrons 20 light years apart, just observing the quantum state of the one guaranties the other is in the opposite state, we don't have to wait 20 years, it happens immediately" - great illustration of QM's own religious belief requirements. Nonsense.
- "what exact was created in the beginning" - "created"? "beginning"? - back to mainstream circular reasoned religious belief requirements. Says much about our human need for just any old answer at a minimum, not much else.
- "as a Christian I'm quick to admit I have no idea which is true" - interesting in that most I've met claimed faith based absolutes which they attempted using as a bludgeon.
- "to help feed the hungry today" - none of this can matter by comparison if you're accomplishing any of that.