Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight."glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
Gravity is...just a theory.Is weight just a theory?
The earth is just in my way...I'm falling down.
Now, when I get to the edge of the universe I'll let you know...
in the mean time.. watch out for ...rocks.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground.
Gravity is...just a theory.
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground.
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that
I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail.
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely
with quantum mechanics.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground.
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail.
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
You're a walking contradicition.
And who is..."We're"???? Do these "We're pretty sure" have names or is
it me, myself and I?
Gravitly is not a force, so there is nothing forcing me to stay here on
dis rock. It's in my way.
I should be traveling in a straight line forever if it wasn't for all
these rocks in my way.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground.
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for
"hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from
general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that
I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby. >>
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail.
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely
with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for
"hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from
general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that >> I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail. >>
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely
with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for
"hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations >> to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from >> general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that >> I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail. >>
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely >> with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for >> "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations >> to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from >> general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that >> I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail. >>
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely >> with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
A half of a predicition doesn't cut the mustard.
How about something bigger than an electron??Like a cat in a box.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for >>>> "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations >>>> to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions
match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with
each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from >>>> general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that >>>> I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail. >>>>
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely >>>> with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the
results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a
correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
A half of a predicition doesn't cut the mustard.
On 21-Mar-23 4:40 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for >>>> "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations >>>> to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions >>>> match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified). >>>>
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with >>>> each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from >>>> general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that
I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail.
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely >>>> with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the >>> results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a >> correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
A half of a predicition doesn't cut the mustard.The current thinking is that quantum mechanics provides all the
information that exists. That is, even the universe itself doesn't know where an electron will be found before the actual finding.
For a while there was a notion that the information did exist, but was
just hidden from view (that is, a hidden variable). But entanglement and Bell's theorem [*] put paid to that.
Sylvia.
[*] Note, theorem, not theory.
On 21-Mar-23 4:40 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for >>>> "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations >>>> to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions >>>> match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified).
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with >>>> each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from >>>> general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that >>>> I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail. >>>>
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely >>>> with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the >>> results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a
correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
A half of a predicition doesn't cut the mustard.
The current thinking is that quantum mechanics provides all the
information that exists. That is, even the universe itself doesn't know
where an electron will be found before the actual finding.
For a while there was a notion that the information did exist, but was
just hidden from view (that is, a hidden variable). But entanglement and Bell's theorem [*] put paid to that.
Sylvia.
[*] Note, theorem, not theory.
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:17:51 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21-Mar-23 4:40 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:The current thinking is that quantum mechanics provides all the
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground. >>>>>>>
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not
understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for >>>>>> "hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations >>>>>> to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions >>>>>> match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified). >>>>>>
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with >>>>>> each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from >>>>>> general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that >>>>>> I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail. >>>>>>
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely >>>>>> with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the >>>>> results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the
results of observations
to be predicted.'
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a >>>> correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
A half of a predicition doesn't cut the mustard.
information that exists. That is, even the universe itself doesn't know
where an electron will be found before the actual finding.
For a while there was a notion that the information did exist, but was
just hidden from view (that is, a hidden variable). But entanglement and
Bell's theorem [*] put paid to that.
Sylvia.
[*] Note, theorem, not theory.
How can entanglement work if it is in the multiples?
Quantum objects encounter more others in their future for more than one entanglement how do you measure "multiples" of the entangled?
Bell's Inequality has been proven to not demonstrate action at a distance.
In that experiment polarization is not know at the very beginning so there can be no polarization comparisons after.
On 21-Mar-23 1:58 pm, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:17:51 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21-Mar-23 4:40 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:The current thinking is that quantum mechanics provides all the
On 20-Mar-23 5:28 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:Quantum mechanics makes perfectly good predictions of results.
On 20-Mar-23 7:12 am, The Starmaker wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its gravity strength gives us weight.
Weight resists our leaving gravity...
Look at a rocket... weight resistance
must be overcome...
"glued"??? There is no glue on the bottom of my shoe or on the ground.
Gravity is...just a theory.
The "just a theory" response is received from people who do not >>>>>> understand how science works, and think that "theory" is a synonym for
"hypothesis".
In science, a theory is a model that allows the results of observations
to be predicted. It can then be tested to see whether the predictions >>>>>> match the results (theory verified [*]), or not (theory falsified). >>>>>>
Gravity is a model that predicts how things having mass interact with >>>>>> each other. So far, it works very well, and with the modifications from
general relativity, it does extremely well [**].
By contrast a "glue in the bottom of my shoe" would fail to predict that
I'd fall if I step off a chair, and would be falsified immediately thereby.
Sylvia.
[*] Verified does not mean proven. The next prediction could still fail.
[**] We're pretty sure it's not perfect, because it doesn't play nicely
with quantum mechanics.
First Sylvia you say: "In science, a theory is a model that allows the >>>>> results of observations
to be predicted."
then, you contradict yourself by sayin in so many words:
'In science, quantum mechanics is a model that does not allow the >>>>> results of observations
to be predicted.'
If the probability of finding an electron at some place is P, as
determined by experiment, and QM predicts that it will P, then that's a >>>> correct prediction. Yes, I know you want it to tell you where an
electron will be, but we don't always get what we want.
Sylvia.
A half of a predicition doesn't cut the mustard.
information that exists. That is, even the universe itself doesn't know >> where an electron will be found before the actual finding.
For a while there was a notion that the information did exist, but was
just hidden from view (that is, a hidden variable). But entanglement and >> Bell's theorem [*] put paid to that.
Sylvia.
[*] Note, theorem, not theory.
How can entanglement work if it is in the multiples?There's nothing to say that particles cannot be entangled with more than
one other. Indeed, that's the usual case.
Quantum objects encounter more others in their future for more than one entanglement how do you measure "multiples" of the entangled?Experiments look at the correlation between the polarisation of pairs of photons when their polarisation is measured at different angles. They do
Bell's Inequality has been proven to not demonstrate action at a distance. In that experiment polarization is not know at the very beginning so there can be no polarization comparisons after.
not require that the initial polarisation be known.
Bell's theorem shows that the correlation cannot be explained by
assuming that each photon has a polarisation independent of the other.
Sylvia.
So how do you know which entanglement is which?
No. action at a distance does not happen.
There is nothing backing it up because
Bell's Inequality has a flaw that invalidates
it as an experiment ...
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:33:37 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 3/26/23 7:40 PM, Jane wrote:
Gravity is a genuine force. [...]
For some meanings of those words, yes; for other meanings, no. Making
such ambiguous statements is useless.
Einstein was wrong claiming that free fall was an inertial state.
His GR is totally ill-conceived.
You CLEARLY do not understand what Einstein did or how GR is structured. Stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and go STUDY.
You have probably never wondered why an object in free fall continues to accelerate downwards...as a person on the ground can plainly see.
A force is obviously acting on it.
Jane wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:33:37 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 3/26/23 7:40 PM, Jane wrote:
Gravity is a genuine force. [...]
Einstein was wrong claiming that free fall was an inertial state.
His GR is totally ill-conceived.
You CLEARLY do not understand what Einstein did or how GR is
structured.
Stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net and go STUDY.
You have probably never wondered why an object in free fall continues
to accelerate downwards...as a person on the ground can plainly see.
A force is obviously acting on it.
Well, it certaintly isn't gravity since Albert Einstein said Gravity is
not a force.
So, there is no 'obviously force' that I can plainly see.
On 22-Mar-23 4:20 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
So how do you know which entanglement is which?
No. action at a distance does not happen.
There is nothing backing it up because
Bell's Inequality has a flaw that invalidates
it as an experiment ...
Really? Which flaw is that?
Sylvia.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:58:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
Jane wrote:
You have probably never wondered why an object in free fall continues
to accelerate downwards...as a person on the ground can plainly see.
A force is obviously acting on it.
Well, it certaintly isn't gravity since Albert Einstein said Gravity is
not a force.
Well what is causing it?
So, there is no 'obviously force' that I can plainly see.
Can you see the quite massive force that holds two bar magnets together? I suppose Einstein also told you that doesn't exist. I cannot see any acceleration or 'curved spacetime' anywhere.
On 3/30/2023 11:06 AM, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:58:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
Jane wrote:
You have probably never wondered why an object in free fall continues >>> to accelerate downwards...as a person on the ground can plainly see.
A force is obviously acting on it.
Well, it certaintly isn't gravity since Albert Einstein said Gravity is >> not a force.
Well what is causing it?
So, there is no 'obviously force' that I can plainly see.
Can you see the quite massive force that holds two bar magnets together? I suppose Einstein also told you that doesn't exist. I cannot see any acceleration or 'curved spacetime' anywhere.So my question is, does the curved spacetime idea ever correctly predict
a result (outcome?) If not, why was it accepted? If yes, why question
it now?
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 4:33:50 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
On 3/30/2023 11:06 AM, Jane wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:58:53 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:So my question is, does the curved spacetime idea ever correctly predict
Jane wrote:
You have probably never wondered why an object in free fall continues
to accelerate downwards...as a person on the ground can plainly see.
A force is obviously acting on it.
Well, it certaintly isn't gravity since Albert Einstein said Gravity is >> >> not a force.
Well what is causing it?
So, there is no 'obviously force' that I can plainly see.
Can you see the quite massive force that holds two bar magnets together? I >> > suppose Einstein also told you that doesn't exist. I cannot see any
acceleration or 'curved spacetime' anywhere.
a result (outcome?) If not, why was it accepted? If yes, why question
it now?
Light deflects only by gravity. Solar limb material would scatter starlight instead. At Sobral we measured only what gravity could do.
Star light does not scatter by solar limb... it only deflects and is pinpoint.
Mitchell Raemsch
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:23:20 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-Mar-23 4:20 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
So how do you know which entanglement is which?Really? Which flaw is that?
No. action at a distance does not happen.
There is nothing backing it up because
Bell's Inequality has a flaw that invalidates
it as an experiment ...
Sylvia.
Bell's inequality can't know polarization...
of light at the beginning... It is an unknown
that invalidates it as any experimental evidence
for QM entanglement at a distance.
The experimental evidence is for local
wave entanglement alone.
On 31-Mar-23 4:39 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:23:20 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22-Mar-23 4:20 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
So how do you know which entanglement is which?Really? Which flaw is that?
No. action at a distance does not happen.
There is nothing backing it up because
Bell's Inequality has a flaw that invalidates
it as an experiment ...
Sylvia.
Bell's inequality can't know polarization...And of course, this blindingly obvious concern wasn't noticed by anyone who's studied Bell's theorem over the years.
of light at the beginning... It is an unknown
that invalidates it as any experimental evidence
for QM entanglement at a distance.
The experimental evidence is for local
wave entanglement alone.
Or then again, maybe it's you who does not understand what the
inequality is stating.
Yes, that seems more likely.
Sylvia.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:41:27 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31-Mar-23 4:39 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:23:20 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:And of course, this blindingly obvious concern wasn't noticed by anyone
On 22-Mar-23 4:20 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
So how do you know which entanglement is which?Really? Which flaw is that?
No. action at a distance does not happen.
There is nothing backing it up because
Bell's Inequality has a flaw that invalidates
it as an experiment ...
Sylvia.
Bell's inequality can't know polarization...
of light at the beginning... It is an unknown
that invalidates it as any experimental evidence
for QM entanglement at a distance.
The experimental evidence is for local
wave entanglement alone.
who's studied Bell's theorem over the years.
Or then again, maybe it's you who does not understand what the
inequality is stating.
Yes, that seems more likely.
Sylvia.
That experiment had an overlooked flaw.
How is the first polarization to emitted light
known? At double emission how is their
polarization to be known? Because that
remains unknown the experiment doesn't
show anything about QM action at a
distance. It never did...
Bell's Inequality is an experiment that
was lied about. How could they not see
they left something out?
Mitchell Raemsch
On 07-Apr-23 10:19 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:41:27 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 31-Mar-23 4:39 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:23:20 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 22-Mar-23 4:20 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:And of course, this blindingly obvious concern wasn't noticed by anyone >> who's studied Bell's theorem over the years.
So how do you know which entanglement is which?Really? Which flaw is that?
No. action at a distance does not happen.
There is nothing backing it up because
Bell's Inequality has a flaw that invalidates
it as an experiment ...
Sylvia.
Bell's inequality can't know polarization...
of light at the beginning... It is an unknown
that invalidates it as any experimental evidence
for QM entanglement at a distance.
The experimental evidence is for local
wave entanglement alone.
Or then again, maybe it's you who does not understand what the
inequality is stating.
Yes, that seems more likely.
Sylvia.
That experiment had an overlooked flaw.Yet another supposition that a bindingly obvious flaw had somehow been overlooked for decades, and only the masterful Usenet poster had managed
to spot it. The arrogance verges on monumental.
How is the first polarization to emitted light
known? At double emission how is their
polarization to be known? Because that
remains unknown the experiment doesn't
show anything about QM action at a
distance. It never did...
Bell's Inequality is an experiment that
was lied about. How could they not see
they left something out?
Mitchell RaemschThe experiment is not based on the initial polarisation. It only
concerns the comparison between the measured polarisation of the two
photons, as you would know if you'd actually read up on the experiment rather than making assumptions about it.
Sylvia.
Jane wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 00:10:14 +0000, John-Paul Mosconi wrote:
Jane wrote:
what a fucking idiot, not knowing what acceleration is.
*_The_acceleration_* DO exists, but NOT the forces. Idiot. Kiss my
ass.
Poor fellow. Have you ever tried to pull a couple of the latest bar
magnets apart? Obviously a very strong force is holding them together. >>> No acceleration is involved. I'm afraid you are just another victim of >>> Einstein's great scientific scam..
you mix shit together, fucking stupid. Magnetism, electromagnetism is
not Gravity, the curvature of spacetime. Different forces, idiot.
Freefald is about Gravity not electro/magnetism. What a fucking idiot.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Did I hit a nerve by proving thatso you don't even know there are four different forces in Nature, maybe five. Kiss my ass.
Einstein's theory is based on a really stupid idea.
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:58:18 AM UTC-7, John-Paul Mosconi wrote:
Jane wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 00:10:14 +0000, John-Paul Mosconi wrote:so you don't even know there are four different forces in Nature, maybe
Jane wrote:
what a fucking idiot, not knowing what acceleration is.
*_The_acceleration_* DO exists, but NOT the forces. Idiot. Kiss my
ass.
Poor fellow. Have you ever tried to pull a couple of the latest bar
magnets apart? Obviously a very strong force is holding them together. >> >>> No acceleration is involved. I'm afraid you are just another victim of >> >>> Einstein's great scientific scam..
you mix shit together, fucking stupid. Magnetism, electromagnetism is
not Gravity, the curvature of spacetime. Different forces, idiot.
Freefald is about Gravity not electro/magnetism. What a fucking idiot.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Did I hit a nerve by proving that
Einstein's theory is based on a really stupid idea.
five. Kiss my ass.
Jane? Accepting force science is necessary.
Forces act on material. Gravity causes the atom to move and weigh.
Magnets can push each other giving them kinetic time dilation and energy. Gravity acts on light. It gives it a curved path.
Drop Free fall is acceleration or deceleration if you throw
something upward. People need to kiss their own ass...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 104:03:09 |
| Calls: | 6,700 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,350,238 |