pzkpfw

There's also an element of "lies to children". The average person doesn't need a completely scientifically accurate explanation of something to the smallest detail. They just need to know "enough". Like the friend of mine in college (= US high school) who put his motorcycle gloves in a microwave to "dry" them, and hurt his hands when he put them on. It's like the difference between "education" by pop-sci youtube videos, vs University.

I think we need to explain "you can't have your cake and eat it too". Back on page 1 swansont told you "One way is to send it through a polarizing beam-splitter cube. If the polarization is in one direction it goes straight through. If it’s orthogonal it gets reflected. Knowing which way it goes tells you the polarization " So you have detectors at different locations, corresponding to the outputs of the beam-splitter cube. Which detector detects the photon tells you the spin that that photon had.

Are you reading replies? Neither "trillions" nor "single" applies the way you think. As already noted in this thread, the experiments are done in controlled conditions, as in, they don't leave the apparatus sitting out in the mid-day sun. And they are not dealing with one photon at a time, they are using statistics (as noted in this thread) to analyse the results over a multitude.

Entanglement experiments start with making two particles be entangled. i.e. you don't entangle one - what's it entangled with? Nor do you need to go looking for the other.

Astounded again. Nobody (in science) claims this. It's a strawman that creationists argue against.

That is simply astounding from someone who has twice in this thread made snarky references to "common knowledge".

... and a lot of what he says (that gets quoted) is at the level of pop-sci, not formal papers.

It comes to us, from all directions. So it's coming from everywhere. It's not like finding a specific thing in one location and thinking that's everywhere. Bear in mind it was predicted to exist, and was later found. That'd be a good coincidence if it's actually something else.

Nope, I meant exactly what I wrote.

How many elements are in A? How many elements are in B? Is there a way to uniquely pair elements from A and B 1-to-1 ? You are misapplying statistics.

I don't really understand the point you're making in reply to my post. To me it seems simple: 1. Enable [print to PDF] on the Linux machine (I use Windows so have no specific instructions, but it seems googleable) 2. Open Libre office, use it to open the .ODT file. 3. Print, selecting the "to pdf" option (it may show as "to file") instead of an actual printer, that'll stick the content formatted into a PDF in a file, directly on the memory stick for ease. 4. Shove the stick in the printer; it can handle PDF. (That'll give a much better quality result, easy and repeatable - especially for multiple pages, than a bunch of screen shots.) Of course it's all a bit weird. The OP doesn't tell us until their 3rd post they use Linux. Gets grumpy when their idea (like heck Brother will bother making their printers handle ODT files). And hasn't told us why they can't just print directly from their PC. I'm guessing it's because their PC is in their sex dungeon and their printer is in their laundry. Too far for a cable and they can't get the WiFi to work. (Yes, I googled whether a MFC-L5850DW has WiFi.)

Searching [ linux print to pdf ] gives plenty of results.

Brother printers can print direct from USB memory, but only certain formats are supported. e.g. https://help.brother-usa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/76908/~/how-do-i-print-documents-or-data-directly-from-a-usb-flash-drive-or-digital To print the odt files, install Libre Office on a computer connected to the printer. If no PC is connected, try KJW's suggestion to print to pdf, then stick that in the printer.

Could you just use a servo? If it doesn't need to be too strong, you might find a cheap Arduino kit with a servo. Then easy to program, for how much sweep you want. This kind of thing (skip right to near the end to see in action):

It's very normal for a forum to have a time limit on the ability to edit a post. You could just re-post, I guess. (Here, not a new thread.) Disclaimer: I am not a moderator of this forum, I have no authority and am not pretending to have any.

I know from my own plum tree that birds can tell the difference between a green unripe plum and a red ripe one. Bees can find flowers. That's not putting any emotion on the birds and the bees, nor is it anthropomorphism to say: they can certainly detect and distinguish colours. Why does it matter to you that they don't have a language with which to name these things, or a brain like ours to "know" them?

I sometime find it hard to do what I would like when replying to a post, due to the WYSIWYG editor. I've not been able to find a non-WYSIWYG mode, e.g. where you'd see the tags used by the site to mark quotes and such. Does that exist? If so, what's "the button" look like?

You seem to be shifting the goal posts. https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/03/28/1332458.htm#:~:text=Australian marsupials can see in,from primates to do so. Nobody is saying "blue makes kangaroos sad", or "red makes kangaroos angry", or that they have a special word for their favourite green, when their food is most edible. But you started out saying colour only exists in human minds. It's been pointed out that light has different measurable frequencies and it can be show that different animals can perceive them. Just look at the green plants that make yellow (etc) flowers to help the pollinators find them (sometimes more about UV light) - even many insects can see some kind of difference. If your point is just that we shouldn't anthropomorphise animal colour vision, that's fine but it's NOT anthropomorphic to study (and show) their colour vision exists.

What do you say to the various experiments done that show (some) animals can tell one colour from another?

I read the article, and didn't see anything in it about whether animals can distinguish colours. Then I realised, there was some doubt about what caused the female kangaroos' death. It became obvious: as the kanagroo can't distinguish colours (so says mar_mar), it hopped into a tree it hadn't noticed.

I don't think that's a valid way of looking at it as you neglect to include where the $6 comes from. It's from income (e.g. the money you spent minus the tax), and isn't infinite. Start with the $106 that you got from somewhere. You buy that $100 thing and $6 goes to tax. In your next step, that 2nd person starts with the $100 they got from you. They might buy something for $94.50 + $5.50 going to tax. The third person spends that $94.50 as $89.50 with $5.00 going to tax. ... it's not generating infinite tax. All that taxed money still had to come from income somewhere. (I'm tired, I'm making up the specific numbers.)

First thing to make clear: pop science, and bad science fiction, makes a big deal of the "observation" part of the double slit experiment but that doesn't mean anything like an intelligent observer is needed. It's just about interactions of things. No consciousness needed. And no, plants don't "know" they reflect light. So what? Why does that matter? Reflected light from one (unconscious unaware) object may hit another (unconscious unaware) object. The specifics of that light (wavelength, intensity, ...) can mean different effects occur, e.g. different amount of heat added to the second object. The second object, perhaps a rock, doesn't call the light "green" or "banana". Why does that matter to you? (When you close your eyes, does your coffee cup vanish? Does it become non-real, only to somehow reappear when you open your eyes again? In the centre of a large forest, that no human has ever been to - are there trees? Or just a formless void because nobody has looked at it? If someone did look, would fully-formed trees suddenly appear?)

Before humans existed, there were plants. Are you saying those plants would not have reflected 555 nanometer wavelength light - just because there was no one there to give a name for what they perceive?

You should talk to this guy, who had "Space must have some kind of elastic nature woven together with matter" as an important part of his theory:

I know what I say when I hit my thumb with a hammer.