Science junkies .. I need help with this one.

[ABikerSailor]

At least according to Hollywood.

Actually, no. It's according to what archaeologists and others who have studied the Mayan culture and artifacts have come up with.

Interestingly enough, did you know that the Mayans calculated the rotation of the Earth around the Sun to within 8/10ths of a SECOND of what scientists and astronomers say it is with all our super fantastic technology?

Might wanna do some research into the subject, the Blight.

and archeologists and others who have studied the Mayans are above reproach ?
Even Einstein was proven wrong about somethings. Lets not be too quick to take a scientist's word as the gospel truth lest we sound like a religious fundementalist.

Dillo........that's why I put the word "end" in quotations.

Dunno if the world is gonna end or not then, it's just what their calendar says, and, the figuring of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun to 8/10ths of a second of what current science says is based on things found out in that calendar.

Nope........no religious fundamentalism going on here.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, no. It's according to what archaeologists and others who have studied the Mayan culture and artifacts have come up with.

Interestingly enough, did you know that the Mayans calculated the rotation of the Earth around the Sun to within 8/10ths of a SECOND of what scientists and astronomers say it is with all our super fantastic technology?

Might wanna do some research into the subject, the Blight.

and archeologists and others who have studied the Mayans are above reproach ?
Even Einstein was proven wrong about somethings. Lets not be too quick to take a scientist's word as the gospel truth lest we sound like a religious fundementalist.

Dillo........that's why I put the word "end" in quotations.

Dunno if the world is gonna end or not then, it's just what their calendar says, and, the figuring of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun to 8/10ths of a second of what current science says is based on things found out in that calendar.

Nope........no religious fundamentalism going on here.

I fully understand what their calender actually says------I just chose not to take the word of the scientists who studied it as the gospel truth. A degree, fancy tools to measure and years of study doesn't make scientists infallible. How many times has taking the word of that "latest" science been a disaster ?

http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/...iter-spacecraft-team-metric-system?_s=PM:TECH

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More precisely, INFORMATION cannot be propagated faster than the speed of light.

I was under the impression that quantum entanglement threw a giant monkey wrench into that one?

Only if we can figure out how to get information out of it. We can change the spin of an entangled particle but we loose the entanglement after we do so. That gives us just one byte of data, which only tells us something if we have another means of transmitting information to supplement it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and archeologists and others who have studied the Mayans are above reproach ?
Even Einstein was proven wrong about somethings. Lets not be too quick to take a scientist's word as the gospel truth lest we sound like a religious fundementalist.

Dillo........that's why I put the word "end" in quotations.

Dunno if the world is gonna end or not then, it's just what their calendar says, and, the figuring of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun to 8/10ths of a second of what current science says is based on things found out in that calendar.

Nope........no religious fundamentalism going on here.

I fully understand what their calender actually says------I just chose not to take the word of the scientists who studied it as the gospel truth. A degree, fancy tools to measure and years of study doesn't make scientists infallible. How many times has taking the word of that "latest" science been a disaster ?

Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter - CNN

I actually trust the scientist, I just do not trust the Mayans.

 

[JBeukema]

More precisely, INFORMATION cannot be propagated faster than the speed of light.

I was under the impression that quantum entanglement threw a giant monkey wrench into that one?

Only if we can figure out how to get information out of it. We can change the spin of an entangled particle but we loose the entanglement after we do so. That gives us just one byte of data, which only tells us something if we have another means of transmitting information to supplement it.

Must not 'information' regarding the outside influences on particle A somehow be transmitted in order to effect change in particle B?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was under the impression that quantum entanglement threw a giant monkey wrench into that one?

Only if we can figure out how to get information out of it. We can change the spin of an entangled particle but we loose the entanglement after we do so. That gives us just one byte of data, which only tells us something if we have another means of transmitting information to supplement it.

Must not 'information' regarding the outside influences on particle A somehow be transmitted in order to effect change in particle B?

We have to know everything about particle A in order to judge the difference in particle B. If we adjust the spin of A it will change the spin of B, but we will not know to measure that change unless we are told that the spin of A was changed. Quantum entanglement appears to violate relativity, but no information can be transferred as a result because the information we need to interpret that change has to travel at the speed of light. It does have applications in cryptography, but nothing else, unless current theories are wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

We have to know everything about particle A in order to judge the difference in particle B. If we adjust the spin of A it will change the spin of B, but we will not know to measure that change unless we are told that the spin of A was changed.

Just because we don't know the data doesn't mean it isn't there.

Some force or data of some sort must be in effect, working at a speed exceeding that which any known particle could carry the data, for particle B to reflect the changes to particle A.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We have to know everything about particle A in order to judge the difference in particle B. If we adjust the spin of A it will change the spin of B, but we will not know to measure that change unless we are told that the spin of A was changed.

Just because we don't know the data doesn't mean it isn't there.

Some force or data of some sort must be in effect, working at a speed exceeding that which any known particle could carry the data, for particle B to reflect the changes to particle A.

The data is not there. If you want to take the time to learn everything you need for me to demonstrate this to you feel free. By the time you get to the place where you can understand the math behind it you won't need me to explain it.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, pretend like you're a genius. You always try, and you always end up looking like a fool.

But go ahead and pretend to know what all leading scientists admit is still unanswered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, pretend like you're a genius. You always try, and you always end up looking like a fool.

But go ahead and pretend to know what all leading scientists admit is still unanswered.

I am not the one that tries to prove points by citing research into facilitated communication.

[quant-ph/9801014] Quantum Entanglement and the Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals

Like I said before, if you take the time to understand it, you won't need me to explain it. It is really simple, and even an idiot can get it if he can understand simple algebra.

 

[JBeukema]

Fail. Once again your illiteracy comes into play.

Nothing I've said is mutually exclusive with your link.