Entanglement Shows Space Doesn't Exist!

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa
 


Your posting history is more than enough to gauge your complete and utter scientific illiteracy.


Translation: this person is not saying what I have been trained to say.

I have no problem with physics, chemistry, mathematics or computer science. I understand the postulates and overall current theory and I understand the modern influence of industry and protectionism on current theory. What is obvious from your writings is that you understand a nursery rhyme version of physics.




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa
 


Your posting history is more than enough to gauge your complete and utter scientific illiteracy.


No, substantiating claims is a fair request. But what you have posted above represents your awful behavior in this thread. This is what the other poster meant by "you are hostile".

Look, no one likes being called a jerk. But the shoe fits here. You can either change your tact and be a better man, or you can try to spin your behavior into some kind of justified ire. The only thing that really hangs in the balance is the respect that other members of this forum have for you. If that matters, the choice is easy.



ETA: I hope that my "posting history" is enough for you to consider as reasonably credible here.
edit on 26-9-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ajax84
Check this out, it turns out that the before you measure entangled particles the space between them doesn't exist.
I don't follow this at all.

One experiment shows that quantum entangled particles 5km apart react instantaneously to each other.

Another experiment shows that quantum entangled particles 10km apart react instantaneously to each other.

Hence we can conclude that 5km = 10km because there is no space between them in either one? I don't think so. If the measurements of 5km and 10km in those experiments are not measuring the space between the entangled particles, then what are they measuring?

I think the author of that video has misinterpreted the results of the experiments.

Furthermore, the movie he is showing clips from, "What the bleep do we know?" is known to have many scientifically inaccurate claims mixed in with some science fact. It seems some people don't know how to separate fact from fiction, and this is especially true when the subject is quantum mechanics.
edit on 26-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by john_bmth
 

I'm not interested in talking to you. You are hostile.


Then again, he is also right.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker10
seriously !! i just came from watching that on you tube haha

seems were both subscribed to johananraatz, great minds subcribe alike

edit on 26-9-2012 by truthseeker10 because: (no reason given)


LOL!



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by Ajax84
Check this out, it turns out that the before you measure entangled particles the space between them doesn't exist. But guess what? We're all entangled. Meaning space as we know it, is an illusion of observation! If we don't look at it, it's not there.

There are some interesting Einstein quotes at the end, which suggest he was on to this before he died.


I think the speaker and this video have misunderstood what Einstein was saying. Anything which attempts to give properties to space (or is romanticising the removal of properties from space) is badly off the mark. Space is nothing. Space is and always has been defined as a nothing - it's the separator in between two real things.

The interpretation of entanglement here is false - entangled particles never actually simultaneously change state over any significant distance when measured. Most of these large-distance photonic experiments betray a drastic simplification of the fundamental physical motions of photons. The electron experiments are either misidentified charge-field coupling, or again, misinterpretations of the fundamental motions of quanta.

If anything about Einstein's thought was revealed here, it is the idea that he knew the spacetime models of relativity and the universe were entirely mathematical, and that most interpretations of spacetime were misleading in their physical analogies. Einstein knew well that Quantum Mechanics was a hack and was always fundamentally heuristic and ad-hoc.
edit on 26-9-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)


Actually that's exactly how the video describes space anyway. It's only a separator between locations. What it's saying though is that locality is an illusion and thus space is an illusion as well. There ultimately are no two completely separate objects, and ultimately it's all non-local information sitting outside of space-time like some kind of program.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Nice find, am downloading now.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 




Your insinuation that the scientific community is somehow stuck in their ways and narrow minded is completely false.


... and your insinuation that the scientific community is welcoming and quick to explore and embrace radical changes, new finds, social controversial issues or simply take risks and exists isolated from other cancers of society is also completely false.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by john_bmth
 



Your insinuation that the scientific community is somehow stuck in their ways and narrow minded is completely false.
... and your insinuation that the scientific community is welcoming and quick to explore and embrace radical changes, new finds, social controversial issues or simply take risks and exists isolated from other cancers of society is also completely false.
That depends. Science doesn't welcome novel ideas with no evidence to support them. There is good reason for this...there are lots of novel ideas and most of them turn out to be wrong. However when sufficient evidence is presented to support the novel idea, science indeed welcomes it. This isn't a difficult concept for me to understand, but apparently, for some people, it is.

The now commonly accepted theory of plate tectonics was initially rejected by science because the matching fossil evidence in south America and Africa wasn't considered sufficient without a mechanism to explain plate movement. Once evidence of a mechanism to move the plates was presented, the idea was welcomed and is probably accepted by every scientist except for maybe one or two who also have novel ideas, which they can't support with evidence.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That is completely double-talk you are continuing to agree with your initial preposition and at the same time agreeing, even if partially without mine. Since they are not compatible I do not fallow what is your point.

It does not "depend". Due to the nature how science propagates new ideas will always be restricted and delayed if not outright ignored...



However when sufficient evidence is presented to support the novel idea


No sir, you are incorrect. It is not sufficient evidence that is required, it is sufficient visibility allied with the necessary investigative funds, and fund depends on policy, connections and interests...



science indeed welcomes it


No it does not, science like any other activity in human experience is adverser to changes. especially if they are paradigm changes that puts at risk all previous knowledge, and functions (jobs). Why would it be different.

What you probably intent to state is that science is never still, it is always expanding and seeking new frontiers. That does not constitute a issue to it conservative nature. Tenure and primacy has power and advantages.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
No it does not, science like any other activity in human experience is adverser to changes. especially if they are paradigm changes that puts at risk all previous knowledge, and functions (jobs). Why would it be different.
Then explain the paradigm shift between 1998 and 2003 when all scientists who had an opinion on the topic admitted their previous idea that the universe might stop expanding and collapse was wrong based on new evidence in 1998. They now admit that and seem to welcome the new data which proved them wrong, and none of them seems to have lost a job so I have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa
 


Your posting history is more than enough to gauge your complete and utter scientific illiteracy.


Translation: this person is not saying what I have been trained to say.

I have no problem with physics, chemistry, mathematics or computer science. I understand the postulates and overall current theory and I understand the modern influence of industry and protectionism on current theory. What is obvious from your writings is that you understand a nursery rhyme version of physics.

Translation: you enjoy the false sense of intellectual superiority you feel by deluding yourself into thinking you're privy to secret knowledge when in fact you haven't bothered to actually educate yourself because, well, learning is hard. It's easier to "learn" psuedoscientific, easily digestible garbage from crank websites and YouTube videos than it is to pick up a textbook and actually learn real science. It's easier to decry science as "nursery rhymes" than it is to understand it. Your attitude and ignorance is one all too common on this site. "Deny Ignorance" indeed!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


The scientfic community welcomes ideas supported by evidence, which is an approach this website could do with heeding. You only need to look at the slow motion facepalm that is the perpeptual motion and e-cat threads to see people proclaiming and righteously defending psuedoscientific nonsense completely and utterly devoid of evidence. Which of these two attitudes do you think it was that gave us the technological and medical advances we enjoy today?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Ajax84
Check this out, it turns out that the before you measure entangled particles the space between them doesn't exist.
I don't follow this at all.

One experiment shows that quantum entangled particles 5km apart react instantaneously to each other.

Another experiment shows that quantum entangled particles 10km apart react instantaneously to each other.

Hence we can conclude that 5km = 10km because there is no space between them in either one? I don't think so. If the measurements of 5km and 10km in those experiments are not measuring the space between the entangled particles, then what are they measuring?



Doesn't this also imply that the expansion of space didn't happen after the Big Bang. Hence, no Big Bang?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 




The scientfic community welcomes ideas supported by evidence, which is an approach this website could do with heeding. You only need to look at the slow motion facepalm that is the perpeptual motion and e-cat threads to see people proclaiming and righteously defending psuedoscientific nonsense completely and utterly devoid of evidence. Which of these two attitudes do you think it was that gave us the technological and medical advances we enjoy today?


This is also incorrect, I would accept that this it the utopic view of science and what most would like to be the reality but reality and history does not prove your optimistic outlook as valid.

Isaac Newton
Newton was a alchemist and a theologian those non-evidential based areas did not prevent him from making valid science (we could argue that had he not spent time in those fields he would probably had been more useful). But as I stated science is made by scientists and as any other humans they are bound by the societies that they inhabit, but the society that supports their work that most of the time has no immediate economic return.

Having said that I must agree that perpetual motion seems improbable and if we look on the problem seriously the issue is not in scientifically pursue that field but on how society funds, even promotes and permits falsification of claims. Anyone can be a scientist it just suffices that the scientific process is applied.

There is also a vary large difference between perpetual motion and things like the e-cat, they are based in very different sets of claims and so the subjects just do not mix beyond the part regarding falsification of claims for profit that has nothing to do with science.

On should realize that there are no impossibles, lack of evidence does not by itself constitute a fact, the fact should be a prof regarding why there are not evidences.



Which of these two attitudes do you think it was that gave us the technological and medical advances we enjoy today?


If you knew a bit the history of the scientific process (a class I had in university) it should become obvious that you know not what you are talking about. Science evolved from pseudoscience, basically from pure philosophic thought. I would agree that science and the creation of the scientific method has permitted to separate the fields but as I argued it does not immunize science against what I called cancers of society. (corruption, religion, etc...)

I do not claim that a scientist can not be religious, but I certainly believe that certain sciences can be incompatible with religious beliefs.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: clarification



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


The scientfic community welcomes ideas supported by evidence, which is an approach this website could do with heeding. You only need to look at the slow motion facepalm that is the perpeptual motion and e-cat threads to see people proclaiming and righteously defending psuedoscientific nonsense completely and utterly devoid of evidence. Which of these two attitudes do you think it was that gave us the technological and medical advances we enjoy today?


If you want to join in that e-cat thread and give us a reason based on physics why nickel-hydrogen nanocatalyst heat engines are psuedoscience, please do.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by john_bmth
 


This is also incorrect, I would accept that this it the utopic view of science and what most would like to be the reality but reality and history does not prove your optimistic outlook as valid.

Isaac Newton
Newton was a alchemist and a theologian those non-evidential based areas did not prevent him from making valid science (we could argue that had he not spent time in those fields he would probably had been more useful). But as I stated science is made by scientists and as any other humans they are bound by the societies that they inhabit, but the society that supports their work that most of the time has no immediate economic return.

This is completely off topic. What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?



Having said that I must agree that perpetual motion seems improbable and if we look on the problem seriously the issue is not in scientifically pursue that field but on how society funds, even promotes and permits falsification of claims. Anyone can be a scientist it just suffices that the scientific process is applied.

There is also a vary large difference between perpetual motion and things like the e-cat, they are based in very different sets of claims and so the subjects just do not mix beyond the part regarding falsification of claims for profit that has nothing to do with science.

Rossi's claims, just like perpetual motion claims, are unsupported by a shred of evidence and hidden away in shady corners of fringe conspiracy circles. Science, on the other hand, is open and transparent.


On should realize that there are no impossibles, lack of evidence does not by itself constitute a fact, the fact should be a prof regarding why there are not evidences.

Lack of evidence means exactly that: lack of evidence. A claim unsupported by evidence is just a claim. It holds little to no weight. You are committing the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fallacy.



If you knew a bit the history of the scientific process (a class I had in university) it should become obvious that you know not what you are talking about. Science evolved from pseudoscience, basically from pure philosophic thought. I would agree that science and the creation of the scientific method has permitted to separate the fields but as I argued it does not immunize science against what I called cancers of society. (corruption, religion, etc...)

Again, you point is very muddled. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because scientific method evolved haphazard approaches before scientific method was introduced (who would have thought, eh?) than somehow we should give credence to each and every quack that comes along making fantastic claims about rewriting out understanding of science without so much as an ounce of evidence? You are utterly, utterly wrong. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your science classes.


I do not claim that a scientist can not be religious, but I certainly believe that certain sciences can be incompatible with religious beliefs.[

...and with this statement you have exposed your utter ignorance of science and scientific method. Science classes, indeed.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Doesn't this also imply that the expansion of space didn't happen after the Big Bang. Hence, no Big Bang?
Good question for the author of the video, but as far as I can tell, yes.

I've had some experience looking at claims like this on ATS, and the usual resolution is what I call "dictionary abuse", where the author might say "when I say 'space' I wasn't referring to the definition in the dictionary, but an entirely different meaning which I just made up and you don't know about".

In other words, it's usually nonsense double-talk gibberish, but I have to admit in this case I really don't know how the author of the video resolves that point, but it's a good one.

If all I had to do to eliminate my daily commute was put one entangled particle at home and another at my office, to eliminate the space between them, I'd do it. Why doesn't everybody do this instead of making those long commutes every day?




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Perhaps this explains why some identical twins have sixth-sense like abilities. Very interesting video.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Ajax84
 


I don't think it shows space doesn't exist as much as it shows connectedness does.
Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance." Distance indicates space.
edit on 27-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join