Originally posted by Christopher Albon What would happen if you kept pinging those photons to the receptor until you reached either an odd or even number and then stopped as a 1 or 0 respectively. Would that then convey the information without need for confirmation?
Of course you could but it is still stuck transmitting information at the speed of light so no help there, no instantanious flow of info 30 light years away. Sorry. It's too bad but that seems to be the deal now. Maybe we will figure out a way in a few hundred years assuming science GETS to advance like it has for the past 100. (Climate change may force science to the background in the struggle for bare survival, if the changes are bad enough) Humans are resourceful though and we probably will survive more or less intact but the same will not be said for biodiversity since we are already in the middle of the 6th major extinction event. Humans may go down a couple billion max but entire species will disappear, no more elephants, polar bears, the loss of biodiversity will hit humans and Earth life harder than simple climate change.
Here is a link to what a lot of folks think of as facts:
Originally posted by sonhouse I'm pretty sure it takes place at c only.
Take the shoe experiment a billion lightyears in distance. The knowledge of the other shoe is instantaneously, once you know the right/left-ness of one of the shoes.
Originally posted by sonhouse And it will remain a mystery till a full quantum mechanics theory shows up. Right now, it's relativity V quantum mechanics where relativity talks about big stuff like stars and people and galaxies and going close to the speed of light and how time flow changes in response to different gravity levels and the like while quantum stuff is mostly about the very ...[text shortened]... smart and different doesn't want to play baseball with the guys because he is thinking so much.
" I suspect, some kid who gets bullied in school because he is too smart and different doesn't want to play baseball with the guys because he is thinking so much."
That kid would hate people far too much to go to college long enough to get a degree in anything. He may even hate people too much to finish high school.
Originally posted by Metal Brain That kid would hate people far too much to go to college long enough to get a degree in anything. He may even hate people too much to finish high school.
These days a smart, motivated kid can learn all he/she wants without school.
Sometimes I wish I had been born a few decades later, but the reality is I probably would have learnt less because of computer games.
Originally posted by @twhitehead These days a smart, motivated kid can learn all he/she wants without school.
Sometimes I wish I had been born a few decades later, but the reality is I probably would have learnt less because of computer games.
That is true, but someone like humy would try to belittle them for not having a degree in physics no matter how logical his/her theory is.
Originally posted by @metal-brain That is true, but someone like humy would try to belittle them for not having a degree in physics no matter how logical his/her theory is.
Originally posted by @humy No, I definitely wouldn't.
for not having a degree in physics
I do NOT have a degree in physics and I NEVER claimed that I did.
Then why do science credentials mean so much to you that you constantly try to suppress other's point of view by questioning their credentials?
Credentials should not matter at all. If a point of view is sound what difference does it make if the person is a college dropout or even a high school dropout? Logic is logic.
Originally posted by @fabianfnas Take the shoe experiment a billion lightyears in distance. The knowledge of the other shoe is instantaneously, once you know the right/left-ness of one of the shoes.
The knowledge of the left/right-ness of the other shoe would travel with the first shoe. So it would not be instantaneous.
Originally posted by @metal-brain Then why do science credentials mean so much to you that you constantly try to suppress other's point of view by questioning their credentials?
Credentials should not matter at all. If a point of view is sound what difference does it make if the person is a college dropout or even a high school dropout? Logic is logic.
Credentials seem to matter a whole lot to you in other contexts.
Aren't you the same guy who questions scientific consensus just because poll results only include "scientists" not "climate scientists"? Remember that poll you posted from a scientific society that you then went on to discredit based solely on the criteria that "anyone could join"?
Originally posted by @metal-brain Then why do science credentials mean so much to you that you constantly try to suppress other's point of view by questioning their credentials?
Credentials should not matter at all. If a point of view is sound what difference does it make if the person is a college dropout or even a high school dropout? Logic is logic.
Then why do science credentials mean so much to you that you constantly try to suppress other's point of view by questioning their credentials?
I don't. I point out you obviously have no credentials because of your delusional arrogance of thinking you know better about science than people that actually have some real knowledge and understanding of it because they have actually studied it properly.
Credentials should not matter at all.
Really? So would you be just as happy to have complex emergency surgery done to you by someone with no medical qualifications than a properly qualified surgeon?
There are good reasons why we need formal credentials and why they do matter.
If a point of view is sound what difference does it make if the person is a college dropout or even a high school dropout?
To the soundness of an opinion, none and I never implied the contrary. But it is less far likely to be correct if it is based on ignorance as yours and one good way, not the only good way, to make sure is not based on ignorance is not to be a dropout and do the whole courses and learn well enough to actually be qualified. A qualified person in a field of study is more likely to know more about it and would have less need to rely on just mere 'opinion' but rather the facts.
Originally posted by @wildgrass Credentials seem to matter a whole lot to you in other contexts.
Aren't you the same guy who questions scientific consensus just because poll results only include "scientists" not "climate scientists"? Remember that poll you posted from a scientific society that you then went on to discredit based solely on the criteria that "anyone could join"?
That is the standard that evolved on this forum. Let me demonstrate how it evolved. I pointed out that Freeman Dyson is a well respected scientist that questions AGW theory and was also an Obama supporter (not a right winger at all). In turn humy and sonhouse reject him as relevant opinion because he is not a climate scientist.
Rather than reject their criteria I accept it and use their criteria against them and have done so ever since. It makes more sense since there are many scientists who no nothing about the Vostok ice core samples/Henry's Law and the Pliocene Epoch. Those scientists are far too ignorant of the facts to have an informed opinion. Many on this forum are far too ignorant to have an informed opinion. I think I have done my part in slowly changing that though. Humy and sonhouse are far more informed on this subject because of me. They knew nothing of it before.
Then why do science credentials mean so much to you that you constantly try to suppress other's point of view by questioning their credentials?
I don't. I point out you obviously have no credentials because of your delusional arrogance of thinking you know better about science than people that actually have some real knowledge and under ...[text shortened]... ere 'opinion' but rather the facts.
Logic is logic.
Pity you don't use any.
"I don't. I point out you obviously have no credentials because of your delusional arrogance of thinking you know better about science than people that actually have some real knowledge and understanding of it because they have actually studied it properly."
You are lying again. How well I know science is not based on your opinion only which is also a lie. You know darn well that I know science well which makes you feel insecure because I run circles around you on this forum. You make careless mistakes all the time and it makes you look like you don't know much science yourself. It is ironic that you would make a habit of questioning my credentials when I have never even discussed mine because it really is irrelevant. If you reject my logic try to prove me wrong. If you cannot prove me wrong you are just expressing nothing more than sour grapes because I have proved you wrong so many times.
You are a hopeless case of psychological projection. Stop projecting your own insecurities onto me. Try learning science properly instead of letting your ego get the better of you. Cutting me down out of spite will not make you better at science. It just makes you look like a child throwing an infantile tantrum.
Quantum Entanglement
14 Jul '17 22:121 edit
Back to Top