I have a question?

ChefSlug
reply to post by Kashai

 

We can only observe quantum entanglement facutally on a basis where we can measure quantum properties, I've never heard of Hubble doing that, no.

Why do GPS in cars work?

Even though there is or is not entanglment factors, the electrical properties remain stable at ~c transmission speeds and the trajectories are calculatable, so predictive electronics, no not AI, just well designed circuitry.

So Bedlam your point is????

Kashai
reply to post by Bedlam

 

IF a photon has zero rest mass your explanation makes a photon more like a train on tracts (with gravity as the tracts).

You seem to suggest that any mass in a photon would not achieve infinite density? What happens to mass in a matter/antimatter interactions?

I'm not sure how, exactly, but if that's what it seems like to you, ok.

No, mass in a photon does not achieve infinite density. In a matter/antimatter interaction, both matter and antimatter are exchanged for their energy equivalent.

What is left?

The opposite of right.

Use a particle collider what is left?

Other particles.

A matter/antimatter reaction can also be termed as a matter/antimatter collision, in a collider.

If you accelerate matter and antimatter, you get mass conversion AND you get to add the kinetic energy to the outcome! Other than that, it's pretty much the same, accelerated or no.

Any thoughts?

I think I'll have a beer.

Kashai

ChefSlug
reply to post by Kashai

 

We can only observe quantum entanglement facutally on a basis where we can measure quantum properties, I've never heard of Hubble doing that, no.

Why do GPS in cars work?

Even though there is or is not entanglment factors, the electrical properties remain stable at ~c transmission speeds and the trajectories are calculatable, so predictive electronics, no not AI, just well designed circuitry.

So Bedlam your point is????

My point might be that you're quoting someone else.

My other point might be that if there's a question there, it's not obvious what it might be.

Past that, the old lady insists that I have good points besides the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the bad points outweigh them. She's never been able to break me of tossing my clothes on the floor, for instance, and I refuse to put the seat down.

Bedlam

Kashai

ChefSlug
reply to post by Kashai

 

We can only observe quantum entanglement facutally on a basis where we can measure quantum properties, I've never heard of Hubble doing that, no.

Why do GPS in cars work?

Even though there is or is not entanglment factors, the electrical properties remain stable at ~c transmission speeds and the trajectories are calculatable, so predictive electronics, no not AI, just well designed circuitry.

So Bedlam your point is????

My point might be that you're quoting someone else.

My other point might be that if there's a question there, it's not obvious what it might be.

Past that, the old lady insists that I have good points besides the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the bad points outweigh them. She's never been able to break me of tossing my clothes on the floor, for instance, and I refuse to put the seat down.

I am not quoting another person (to be clear, in my travels I did a stint at Oxford).

If you do not put the seat down you could actually end up with a very serious infection (think about it).


Do you believe that inductive reasoning trumps the deductive equivalent?

Quantum entanglement cannot be verified beyond what??? And activity in a black hole can be verified to what????

Any thoughts?

Kashai

Bedlam

Kashai

ChefSlug
reply to post by Kashai

 

We can only observe quantum entanglement facutally on a basis where we can measure quantum properties, I've never heard of Hubble doing that, no.

Why do GPS in cars work?

Even though there is or is not entanglment factors, the electrical properties remain stable at ~c transmission speeds and the trajectories are calculatable, so predictive electronics, no not AI, just well designed circuitry.

So Bedlam your point is????

My point might be that you're quoting someone else.

My other point might be that if there's a question there, it's not obvious what it might be.

Past that, the old lady insists that I have good points besides the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the bad points outweigh them. She's never been able to break me of tossing my clothes on the floor, for instance, and I refuse to put the seat down.

I am not quoting another person (to be clear, in my travels I did a stint at Oxford).

Perhaps they skipped the part where you see you were quoting ChefSlug. That is not me. You should ask him/her/it what the point was.

If you do not put the seat down you could actually end up with a very serious infection (think about it).

She could end up with a damp butt if she doesn't put it down for herself.

Do you believe that inductive reasoning trumps the deductive equivalent?

Quantum entanglement cannot be verified beyond what??? And activity in a black hole can be verified to what????

Any thoughts?

I'm thinking that there still isn't a clear question here, and the quantum entanglement thing is ChefSlug's. Perhaps you should ask him/her/it.

LOL, Chef Slug said that if one cannot determine deductively what happens near a black hole. Presenting that Quantum entanglements can only occur within the spectrum of mans capacity to initiate such an event?????

An example of why your point is moot.

Time to put your thinking cap on

Any thoughts?

Kashai
LOL, Chef Slug said that if one cannot determine deductively what happens near a black hole. Presenting that Quantum entanglements can only occur within the spectrum of mans capacity to initiate such an event?????

An example of why your point is moot.

Time to put your thinking cap on

Any thoughts?

edit on 16-11-2013 by Kashai because: Content edit

Perhaps you might point out exactly WHICH point is moot, and why.

reply to post by Bedlam


The issue of Inductive Vs. Deductive reasoning was addressed during the first year of your masters degree (or the equivalent outside the USA).

Kashai
reply to post by Bedlam

 

The issue of Inductive Vs. Deductive reasoning was addressed during the first year of your masters degree (or the equivalent outside the USA).

Sure. Back to the question, which point is moot, and why? Please be specific.

A lot of ATS threads founder when a poster suddenly starts with the conversation that goes "Your point is moot!" "Which one" "You know" "No, I don't" "AHA you're avoiding it" "Which point" etc ad nauseam.

We've talked about a number of things. If you think any particular statement was incorrect, quote it and explain why you think it is not.

What is the difference between a Statistical Analysis and an actual test of a Population?

Aspirin has been proven to treat headaches because?

Wheeler offers what?

Where exactly is the nearest black hole that we are certain exist?

At what distance has EPR effect been determined?

Kashai
What would happen if one generated conditions in which, a human was placed into a devise/sphere, that could be rotated at 99.99999999999% the speed of light?

Of course assuming that there was no problem with inertia.

Any thoughts?

edit on 14-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

According to Mach's principle, exactly the same thing as would happen if the sphere remained still and the universe rotated around it

Kashai
What is the difference between a Statistical Analysis and an actual test of a Population?

Aspirin has been proven to treat headaches because?

Wheeler offers what?

Where exactly is the nearest black hole that we are certain exist?

At what distance has EPR effect been determined?

I notice you're still unable to directly cite the point you believe is "moot". In fact, I think it was you last time that did this on another thread. You were never able to do so then, I have to suspect you'll be as vague and rambly now.

Kashai
What would happen if one generated conditions in which, a human was placed into a devise/sphere, that could be rotated at 99.99999999999% the speed of light?

Of course assuming that there was no problem with inertia.

Any thoughts?

edit on 14-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

There would be gawk all over the shop?
And a black hole would be created by one of the twins?

reply to post by Bedlam


1.Bedlam you said to the effect that you are not a photon. I have made clear I disagree and have offered two citations to that effect, including your citation on Wheeler.

Truthfully I am used to conservative respondents selective responses and then acting as if they do not understand.


Any thoughts?

Kashai
reply to post by Bedlam

 

1.Bedlam you said to the effect that you are not a photon. I have made clear I disagree and have offered two citations to that effect, including your citation on Wheeler.

It wasn't clear at all. However, now that you've finally stated what you are having problems with, I can try to go back and see what the citations were.

However, there's a problem with "everything is photons", and that's that it's not true. Photons have no rest mass. Matter has mass. What mass photons do have is through the stress-energy tensor. Photons are EM fields. Matter is not an EM field. Photons have only one speed, C, and they all go C all the time. You cannot have a photon that is NOT propagating at C. Since I'm not propagating at C, have rest mass and am not an EM field, I am not a photon.

Any thoughts?

I'm thinking I don't want to go to work tonight. A couple of days off makes Tom a lazy boy. Oh, and in the same theme as your previous comments, dollars do not contain pennies, although they may be exchanged for them in some interactions.

Bedlam


No, mass in a photon does not achieve infinite density. In a matter/antimatter interaction, both matter and antimatter are exchanged for their energy equivalent.

To be technical, exchanged for other things which have equivalent energy.

Matter/antimatter (and all other) reactions proceed into final states with various probabilities determined by the Standard Model accounting for conservation laws---some whose states could include configurations with no particles with rest mass---as long as total energy & momentum is conserved.

Anti-matter seems unusual because in most cases there is conservation of lepton number and baryon number and without antimatter, this means that if you have > 0 leptons & baryons going in, you will have > 0 coming out. If you have -1 lepton (postiron) and +1 lepton (electron) coming in you can get 0 coming out, so two photons are allowed (one isn't because you can't conserve energy & momentum with one) and this is 'annihilation'.

Energy is a property of particles or configurations, not a "thing" that it can be transformed into. Laymen often get this wrong. (there is a story in Feynman's books about this)

Think about a world without cash---only barter. Everything has a quantifiable price, but there is no object which is purely 'price'.

Ain't no such thing which is "pure energy".

reply to post by mbkennel


I'm generally not rigorous on ATS. You'll likely find something to scoff at in my describing photons as having relativistic mass as well.

Bedlam

Kashai
reply to post by Bedlam

 

1.Bedlam you said to the effect that you are not a photon. I have made clear I disagree and have offered two citations to that effect, including your citation on Wheeler.

It wasn't clear at all. However, now that you've finally stated what you are having problems with, I can try to go back and see what the citations were.

However, there's a problem with "everything is photons", and that's that it's not true. Photons have no rest mass. Matter has mass. What mass photons do have is through the stress-energy tensor. Photons are EM fields. Matter is not an EM field. Photons have only one speed, C, and they all go C all the time. You cannot have a photon that is NOT propagating at C. Since I'm not propagating at C, have rest mass and am not an EM field, I am not a photon.

Any thoughts?

I'm thinking I don't want to go to work tonight. A couple of days off makes Tom a lazy boy. Oh, and in the same theme as your previous comments, dollars do not contain pennies, although they may be exchanged for them in some interactions.

In quantum mechanics dollars are made of pennies.


So you believe that photons do not experience Time?

If a mass enters a black hole (based upon Wheeler) it turns into photons and if one created a stable matter/antimatter collider and mass turns into photons, what are you talking about?????




Any thoughts?