Jump to content

exchemist

Senior Members
  • Posts

    3566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    54

Posts posted by exchemist

  1. On 6/15/2024 at 11:39 PM, mark1966 said:

    So far I have heard replies suggesting that I try something else (All of what I am already aware of except for the seeing of France from Dover). Thank you all for your comments but the sort of comments I am interested in are about the proposed experiment. What are the problems with it (i.e. the proposed area for the experiment is not sufficiently large enough to detect the divergence in the data sets without extremely precise equipment rendering the experiment unrealistic for an individual or small group to conduct. -- or -- both water and light are equally affected but earths gravitational influence so even if there is curvature, that curvature will not be reflected in the data due to a divergence between the sets -- or any other criticism that breaks the experiment as being possible. It does not matter to me if instead of doing the experiment, you would do something different.

    Thank you

    Yes, as @KJW says, it is obvious you can't do this on land, because, durrh, the ground is bumpy! That's the sort of typically stupid answer you can get from ChatGPT, if you don't apply your own critical faculties.

    Even on water it will be hard to do, due to waves, currents, the effect of gusts of wind on whatever floating objects you use, etc.  But the longer the distances you choose, the clearer the result will be. You may note that most of the suggestions people have made, including my own about Dover and France, rely on much larger distances than 1km, to make the effect more obvious. 

    But the whole flat Earth thing is unbelievably silly. Sailors in the ancient world were aware the Earth was not flat. Eratosthenes (the Greeks were a seafaring nation) measured its circumference - and got it more or less right - around 200BC, for God's sake!    

  2. 9 minutes ago, swansont said:

    And now there’s a journal article declaring this to be the case

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5

    We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005): the models are in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs.

    Well, we've all seen on this forum ample evidence of that. This claim not only seems true, but also both very funny, and a timely puncturing of the bubble of hype surrounding these verbose  and fundamentally unintellligent programs.  

    I realise that AI encompasses a far wider scope than LLMs but, as they stand today, LLMs look to me pretty meretricious. 

    It may be that their chief legitimate use is in collating references for the user to determine, for himself, which one are good and which ones are not, i.e. just a superior kind of search engine.

  3. 36 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

    Dimreepr:

    Dawkins is wrong because his entire premise: "God, almost certainly does not exist," because it's "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence" is wrong.

     

    Evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah God is revealed in the creations around us and our fine-tuned universe.  Dawkins has not presented any "strong contradictory evidence" that says otherwise.  He is simply spouting his personal philosophy.

     

    "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20)

     

     

    Alter2Ego

     

     

    You seem to be a hopeless case. It's hard to credit how stupid it is to quote religious scripture as evidence of the truth of the religion in question. Self-referential or what?  

  4. 17 hours ago, --everything-- said:

    Around nine years ago now I noticed that when I look at somebody or another living being they react to it. The responses can include; a blink, raised eyebrows, a flinch, look up, look in my direction, or just a general change in trajectory. This phenomenon is known as a gaze response, and the most prominent researcher that I have come across studying it is Rupert Sheldrake. It is not understood how it happens as there is no physical medium or connection in between people as to how it could happen and so it is a non-local phenomenon (locality means that something can only effect something in direct contact/ immediate proximity with it). However, around seven years ago I noticed that the same responses were also occurring when I watch somebody in a video that was filmed in the past which raised a lot of questions that are discussed in the book I wrote called Change the past in the future - a look into the existence of time by Henry Norsworthy.


    Feel free to leave a comment about any experience you have with gaze response. 

    Sheldrake's ideas don't seem to have got any traction (outside the New Age woo community, at least) 

    Sheldrake's The Sense of Being Stared At explores telepathy, precognition, and the "psychic staring effect." It reported on an experiment Sheldrake conducted where blindfolded subjects guessed whether persons were staring at them or at another target. He reported subjects exhibiting a weak sense of being stared at, but no sense of not being stared at,[87][88] and attributed the results to morphic resonance.[89] He reported a hit rate of 53.1%, describing two subjects as "nearly always right, scoring way above chance levels."[90]

    Several independent experimenters were unable to find evidence beyond statistical randomness that people could tell they were being stared at, with some saying that there were design flaws in Sheldrake's experiments,[11][26][91] such as using test sequences with "relatively few long runs and many alternations" instead of truly randomised patterns.[92][93] In 2005, Michael Shermer expressed concern over confirmation bias and experimenter bias in the tests, and concluded that Sheldrake's claim was unfalsifiable.[94]

     

    From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

  5. 2 hours ago, mark1966 said:

    I am looking for a novel approach. Your suggestions is well known. Thank you for reply and not assuming that I was already familiar with that approach.

     

    They do in the vat that I am bobbing up and down in. Not in yours?

     

    Go to Dover, stand on the beach and look out to sea. You not be able to see France. Climb the cliff and look out to sea and France will be visible.

    But the whole flat Earth thing is so unbelievably silly that one can only assume people strike this pose for fun. In which case there is zero point in reasoning with them.

    I would not waste your time.

  6. 38 minutes ago, sjay said:

    car is 2017 nissan sentra  manual states 7 yrs or 100,000 miles change coolant this car has ONLY 14,000 miles i can't beleive  coolant could break down  with so few driven milescould some of the experts here have an answer?

    It's not "breaking down" exactly, but some components may be used up. Anti-freeze also contains things such as corrosion inhibitors which plate out on surfaces and eventually become used up. It's inevitable in cars that there will be different metals in contact with the coolant which can set up electrochemical corrosion over time. There can also be deposits from corrosion that accumulate in the cooling system and should be flushed out so that you don't get blockages in the radiator, for example. It's cheap and easy to flush out and replace the coolant so hardly a big deal to do.   

  7. 50 minutes ago, Gian said:

    It means the definition of religion in his God Delusion book really is a delusion, because that's not what religious people believe. The definition of God he puts there is just so many groundless assertions. 
    It's a bit like if I wrote a book called The Science Delusion all about how stupid Dawky and other scientists are for believing the Earth is flat.

    But they don't believe the Earth is flat, so such a book would be a pointless imposture.

    That's why when I asked him about it, a clergyman friend of my mum and dad's said "We aren't particularly worried about Professor Dawkins."

    Cheerz

    GIAN🙂XXX

    OK but that’s rather different: what you now seem to be saying is that Dawkins needs a caricature of what religious people believe, in order to be able to disbelieve in that, rather than in what religions actually teach.
     

    Actually I’m to a large extent with you on that. My mother, who was a committed and thoughtful Anglican, always found Dawkins rather funny: “like Mr Punch, with a bladder on a stick”, she used to say. I certainly found his original style of critique superficial. He seemed to me to treat religion as providing an alternative account of the physical world, in confrontation with science, instead of recognising that religion is fundamentally about providing people with a guide to help them live their lives. Of course he’s dead right to ridicule creationism, which idiotically does attempt to deny the findings of science, but creationism is a distinctly minority pursuit, theologically (to put it politely).

    But though I don’t pretend to have followed the evolution of his views in any detail, my impression is that he has softened his tone and become a bit more nuanced in recent years. 

     

  8. 6 hours ago, Gian said:

    Dawkins is one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in

    What does that mean? Is it that Dawkins is in some way an extreme sceptic, who is always on the hunt for things to disbelieve? Do you have evidence he is like that?  Or is it just an attempt at a cheap aphorism?    

    Ciao, love and kisses.

     

  9. 4 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

    In a country that charges for everything, one has to worry about food first and foremost. The challenge of finding a significant other especially if you are as picky as me really is a lot more tricky AND potentially dangerous. You know every dating service will charge large arbitrary sums and it is difficult enough with the compounding charges for transportation, food, and shelter then you have to add up owning a room, or maybe if you're wealthy a home. Occupations that provide all of this don't leave any free-time so you need a dating service that rigs the random chaos of normal social interaction what with gender segregation being a real thing. Gender segregation has its pros, I don't want anyone lowering standards and that's exactly what will happen if you don't gender segregate and you'll miss out. I almost should be a political problem, if not the primary cause of war throughout human history even though I've never heard it addressed as such publicly.  Food, transportation, and shelter should be a lot easier or less of a cause for warfare but even these three basal elements of quality of life are subject to petty synthetic scarcity, almost as a way to prevent dating. It seems to be the primary cause of any other form of poverty, class dominance is probably secretly a dating driven tactic. The number of armed forces is about twice the number of males that are incarcerated. But if it were just male armed forces, that number would be different, then you add the police force and see how it is possible to contain that kind of number for your own dating prospects. It's the only possible explanation for why the world is like this, same reason to encamp Jews in Nazi Germany, keep them from dating prospects. If you really think about how very short our lives are, that is a big factor in why we'd be driven to behave like this. It is desperation, and is sexually driven, just compounded by aging. 

    Anyway, 13 significant years that counted, as an incel gives me some insight into the problem. I'm not technically a virgin but if you want to count lowering my standards as some exclusionary factor from the definition of involuntary celibacy you can try and argue that. I'm 31, looking like this I don't look quite that old, corroborating with those I talk to I have an extra 6 years, primarily listening to younger feedback, looking about 25. Ya know going another 6 years as an incel might be possible, I have seen certain men looking okay at 40, Brad Pitt prime example https://people.com/celebrity/brad-pitt-says-he-liked-turning-40/ . But this has to stop, is there some political way to solve a Maslow's hierarchy crisis. I haven't voted in years, but I'd vote if some candidate offered some service like that. However, I do believe sex is exactly what warfare, policing, money AND politics are all based off of in the first place, but in a very discrete way. Maybe discrete to a younger audience, but to the elders this is probably common fricken knowledge. 

    This is self-pitying nonsense. It is not the job of national politics to sort out your love life. 

    If you are motivated you can find time to cultivate a social hobby, perhaps get in shape, at least a bit (sport?), which will improve your mood and make you more attractive -  and above all socialise. Most people meet partners through work, social activities or just at the supermarket. Dating agencies may have their place but there'a risk they encourage "meat market" thinking about the opposite sex - which makes you highly unattractive, needless to say.  If I think back to how I have met girls in my life (I'm now almost 70), 5 were through work, 4 were through invitations to parties or other social events, one was through the rowing club, another through the sailing club, 2 while travelling.   Don't sit at home moping: get out there, talk to people and when you do, show an interest in them. 

  10. 3 minutes ago, limsonbros said:

    Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medication that has been widely used for decades to treat various parasitic infections such as river blindness (onchocerciasis), lymphatic filariasis, and scabies. Medical science supports its efficacy and safety for these approved uses, highlighting its role in improving public health in regions affected by these parasitic diseases. The drug works by paralyzing and killing the parasites, helping to reduce the burden of these infections on affected populations. Dosepharmacy sells ivermectin for sale.

    In recent years, ivermectin has gained attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the medical community remains divided on its effectiveness against the virus. While some early studies and anecdotal reports suggested potential benefits, larger, more rigorous clinical trials have yielded mixed results. Leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have stated that there is insufficient evidence to recommend ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. They emphasize the need for more high-quality research to conclusively determine its efficacy and safety in this context. 

    Citation required. As far as I am aware, the use of ivermectin to treat Covid 19 was unequivocally dismissed years ago. 

  11. 15 minutes ago, Gian said:

    Sounds like you need to make some friends mate🙂

    Disliking, say, communism is not racism is it?

    The dislike of Jews and Judaism was not racism, there was no such thing before the 19thC. As I've stated elsewhere, if, in the middle ages, Jews converted to Christanity, the Christian Churches had no further problem with them. Why would they?

    Cheerz

    GIAN🙂XXX

    I think this needs explanation. Why do you think what you term “dislike” of Jews (extending to  to discriminatory laws and practices and sometimes physical expulsion) before the c.19th was not racism?

    Ciao, love and kisses.

  12. 17 minutes ago, T.W. Morris said:

    I have to post this.  It's taken me 2 decades.  The Humanities is a science. A 5-field science.  But one of those fields is not plate Techtonics or volcanism.

    Asia, Europe and the Lavant, have Vesuvius, as a time marker, now there is a strange scientific marvel!  (but it's not a good time marker in pre-historic studies)

    America has Yellowstone, as a geo-fault oddity, and as a time marker it has to be considered! (but it's not a good time marker in historic studies)

    It can be toasted, that the complete depiction of human history can be summed up as an extraterrestrial ELE (Extinction Level Event) which buried the earth and all its inhabitants sometime in the pre-historic time frame.  It is very, very hard to tell an archaeologist that they are wrong.  It is even harder to tell them that all things on earth are retroactive and repeat with nauseating repedity. But that's the science, and without some geologists help, we are going to get stuck in this timeframe a long time, and that isn't good from the looks of things.  So... when are these academic professors, going to allow us backyard archaeologists to work together, to build idiotic theories of human endeavor long past discarded in strange forms of entertainment?  But I can't find any other people who have been buried in volcanic debris, neither historic nor pre-historic.

    The mummy?  I was against it from the beginning.  There isn't even a timeframe in it!  But when sociopaths insist on things, the rest of us tend to agree.  What if there are Vesuvius type remains in N. America?  Isn't it the students right to be informed in such a swayed science of like-minded individuals?  Anything buried in volcanic ash turns to voclanic ash, and if you tried to save your ancestor who was buried in volcanic ash?  Wouldn't the remains ultimately become broken, lost and finally discarded from moving them, touching them and trying to communicate with them? (pardon the guess) Especially, if you don't have scholarly labs, professional diggers and a large warehouse to use as a storage area.

    Americans are Americans.  Africans are Africans.  Honestly, would you tell everyone you were related to me after what you just read?!!!?

    Yep. I got all the above in my backyard. #42Le561 isn't an Eastern American Smithsonian number, and they haven't ever been here... I know.  I have been patiently waiting... and waiting... and waiting.LMHomepg..jpg.419c03dfe56d162cfcdd642d75292059.jpg

    This is word salad. There is nothing to respond to here.   

  13. 24 minutes ago, Gian said:

    Mr TheVat

    I can't find the Chomsky quote but he's said it in interview several times.

    Surveys are unnecessary; just go and get to know unskilled construction workers (I was one of them once) or any unskilled workers with as little "education" as possible.

    I'm not saying they're geniuses, but by comparison, University students are pathetically easily led.

    The following film The Great Awakening (2023) is mostly fear-mongering and "conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories," but I do agree with what is said at 00:26:18

    "'You would think it would be people with lower IQ's that would be susceptible to this [illogical mass ideology] but it seems to be the other way around. Are you seeing this?'

    "'I have seen this. And it does seem to be predicted by educational status and IQ.'"

    https://youtu.be/1fDWZjvNUC8?si=aDiHxnYRH7rNxyu-

    Cheerz

    GIAN🙂XXX

     

    Mr StringJunky

    Why would "Zionists" need to "invent" antisemitism? Why would they need to uproot themselves, trek across the world from North America, Europe and Russia to Palestine if they weren't already experiencing serious threats and racism?

    I shouldn't think you'd uproot yourself and relocate to New Zealand unless you had a very very good reason. I sure wouldn't.

    Cheerz

    GIANxxx

    Not  quite a fair comparison, I suggest. New Zealand isn't your ancestral homeland and the setting for much of your religious scripture. 

    But if antisemitism existed before the c.19th, doesn't that imply that racism existed earlier too? Or do you argue that prejudice against the Jewish religion, customs and traditions did not constitute racism?   

  14. 3 minutes ago, geordief said:

     

    So (I know some people don't like thst use of "so":() I saw the optometrist  and she said  the floater  looked a littie thin in one place

     

    She had given me a referral to an ophthalamologist  in 7-10 days even though  I have had no symptoms of detached retina.

    They offered me some micronutrient  (vitrocap) seemingly to dissolve the weiss ring but I didn't bother with it(maybe down the line if it becomes annoying)

    As well I had a bacterial infection in the eyelid and so it will be more comfortable when that clears.

    OK that's good. There may well be nothing to worry about in your case but it's worth making sure, I reckon.  

  15. 1 hour ago, Gian said:

    It's been aided by social media and other communications technology, but the act of doing so is man-made, social media and tech not being a person.

    So Dawky and several of his unpleasant "new atheist" friends definitely did encourage it with their vile bile about religion in the early 2000s.

    (Incidentally, there was no "new atheism" during the Cold War, which is in itself quite telling, but that's another story.) 

    What has happened I think is one of Richard Dawkins' "memes."

    Someone somewhere thought of cancelling someone because they can't actually mount a counter-argument, and now everyone's doing it.
     

    "'Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century.' Citation needed."

    Here's a citation for you. Hannah Arendt, who was jewish and living in pre-war National Socialist Germany, states in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that racist ideology developed in the 19th century as a way of justifying imperial conquest. It was aided by scientific racism, or Social Darwinism.

    Racist ideas disseminated in the 19th century on scientific hypotheses were combined with unilineal theories of social progress, which asserted the superiority of the European civilization over the rest of the world. The term "survival of the fittest" is a term coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, and is associated with ideas of competition, which were named Social Darwinism in the 1940s. This was of course later applied to Jews by the National Socialists.

    The antismeitism prior to the 19th century as proposed by the Christian Churches began I would say with St John Chrysostom in the 4th Century AD. However it must be emphasised that The Catholic Church's resentment was down to judaism as a religion and jews as its followers, there being no concept of "race" at that time.

    Jews frequently converted to Christianity in the middle ages, after which the Church had no further problem with them. This is of course radically different to what happened to the jews in the 20th century.

     

    Prof Noam Chomsky on "new atheists" Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens:

    “Well I think that they [Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens] are religious fanatics. They happen to believe in the state religion which is much more dangerous than other religions for the most part.


    “So they both of them happen to be defenders of the state religion namely the religion that says we have to support the violence and atrocities of our own state because it's being done for all sorts of wonderful reasons…. That’s just another religion like the religion that markets know best.


    “I mean it doesn't happen to be a religion that you pray to every once a week, but it's just another religion and it's very destructive.”

    NOAM CHOMSKY
    Speaking at the University of Toronto Scarborough April 2011

    https://youtu.be/ql7wgqmtSv4?si=A_3dNCRXfvn28GcI

     

    Yes I think it's the case that racism was certainly elevated to an ideological, moral, pseudoscientific footing in the c.19th. It helped to justify the competitive colonialism of the period.  But before that time there seems little doubt people tended to have what we would now see as a racist outlook. After all, the slave trade was predicated on the notion that black Africans could be treated as subhuman.

    I also think the Four Horsemen of New Atheism indeed tried, for a while, a kind of evangelical promotion of atheism as a replacement for religion. I've even come across a film they produced, designed to inspire awe in the grandeur of nature and to ridicule traditional religion (silly cartoon animation of hell, with little devils with pitchforks). I think the idea was to appeal to that part of human nature that is satisfied by religious feeling, but it was hopelessly cack-handed and crude. This idea was never progressed, thank goodness.

    But your attempt to connect this to so-called "cancel culture" strikes me as unpersuasive. In universities there have always been controversies over what speakers to invite and protests over it. I remember this from Oxford in the 1970s. The irony is that this term, invented by the far-Right as a stick to beat the Left with, describes a practice that is now used as much by the Right as  the Left, for example in the banning of various books from American school libraries.

    But this is not generally about religion (though some Right wing US school boards ban Romeo and Juliet because there is too much sexual language). I asked you earlier on this thread for examples of religious speakers being "cancelled" and got no response. I've never come across this and doubt it is really a thing.           

  16. 9 minutes ago, Gian said:

    You can start off with science basics with children as soon as they start primary school. You can also start them off with the basics of theology.

    True, if your school syllabus includes teaching religion, which is however excluded in some countries, e.g. the USA and France. You do not teach religion in science lessons, though. You teach it, if you teach it at all, in classes on religion.

    Creationism is not basic theology however. It is one of the beliefs of certain Protestant denominations - and possibly some versions of Islam, I think.  

    Ciao, love and kisses.

     

  17. 3 hours ago, Gian said:

    The word Dawky used in "2002" was "disrespect." I'm not aware that disrespecting racists or anyone else's opinions actually changed those opinions.
    What Dawk should have said was something like "We need to sharpen our arguments and counter-argue religion even more strongly."

    There is no argument inside "disrespect" of other people's perspectives, any more than there there's a valid argument inside some men's disrespect of women. Disrespect is an act of violence, not reason. 

    So yes, Dawky was actively encouraging cancel culture, and if he doesn't like it now he's only himself to blame.

    Plus of course, Dawky's critique of religion is especially useless, becasue he's critiquing something which really is not there. What constitutes religion is something else entirely from what he's concocted in his ridiculous God Delusion book, for the sole purpose of having something he can then not believe in. Extraordinary.

    And putting creationist beliefs to children alongside science is an exceptionally good idea. Argument with counterargument is the most important thing children need to learn, they enjoy argument and they're always very good at it.

    In other words, if you've been able to work out Creationsim is nonsense, shouldn't you want to give children the equipment they need to do the same? Becasue if schoolteachers don't... someone else will won't they? If creationsism were taught alonside science in school, you'd probably find there'd be alot less creationsim and not more of it.

    Cheerz

    GIAN😊XXX



     

    That very much depends on the age of the children. In the 6th form, yes, in a class on religion or philosophy it can be instructive to expose the students to the issue, seeing as by then they will be alert to the philosophical distinction between religious and scientific ideas - and will most likely be aware of the politics lurking behind the issue.

    However it makes no sense whatever to confuse younger children with rival models, one of which is known to be false, and most certainly not in a science class. After all, we don't teach them the caloric theory of heat, the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the geocentric model of the solar system. (Such things might be taught in a history of science class, later on, to show how ideas have developed through time.) 

  18. On 6/5/2024 at 8:06 PM, tylers100 said:

    Quote: "Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become weaker as objects get farther away."
    from link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

    Could that be so because of something similar or same as what I previously said and drew Gravity Field Visualization above?

    Yes, your visualisation is good. If you draw lines radiating out from a point, the density of the lines will fall off with the square of the radial distance from the central point. This gives exactly Newton’s inverse square relation.
     

    It’s just the same as the way the intensity of illumination falls with distance from a point source of light. It’s a consequence of the surface of a sphere being proportional to the square of its radius. You have the same number of lines in total, passing through a bigger and bigger total surface area, as the radius of sphere increases. 
     

    But for calculation, the algebra is a lot more useful than the visualisation.

  19. 1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

    Perhaps I was jumping a bit too much without really knowing in detail or depth about QM, but it just occurs to me that QM tunnelling (you said no motion) seems to involve 1st travel distance as in "jump or instantaneous" QM tunnelling ("no motion"). If so, that would seem to enable a "pathway" for spaceship have a warp drive capability to travel in it.

    I think gotta have to know or understand spacetime stuff better first in order to as precede QM tunnelling and warp drive, if that make sense.

    I just want to interject myself into this discussion due to fact that I like Star Trek stuff and this may open up a possibility about warp drive for spaceflight exploration, but I'm aware that I may be a bit far-fetched with what I said.. but still, if there is a chance that it could be possible.

    No, QM tunnelling offers no such possibility, I'm afraid. For a start it is only significant at the scale at which the wavelike nature of matter become important - in practice, objects the size of an atom or a subatomic particle. And then, as I've been saying it's a statistical effect from the way a probability cloud is resolved into a measurement. 

  20. 17 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

    Maybe can suggest interdisciplinary discussion between these threads and this one:

    link:

    Other comment:

    Also maybe factor into understanding spacetime related thread(s) in other physics categories.

    It occurs to me that trying to understanding spacetime thread(s) between and this one and warp thread might help.

    You’ve lost me. Why should there be a connection between QM tunnelling, which involves no motion, and a warp drive?

  21. 13 minutes ago, geordief said:

     

    I went a bit off topic and was thinking about @joigus 's disginction btw reality and causality and probably got the wrong end of the stick.

    I think "realism" (local realism?) has a defined meaning and use in physics (quantum physics?)   that I have not been able to get my head around so far and perhaps I confused it  with "reality"

    As for the OP  it  seems there are time lapses that can be measured  as well as distances   but ,perhaps you are saying it that the  field is in both places and  it is just the measurements of two particles in that field that are separated by time and space giving the illusion that one particle travels  to the position of the second particle -and at a speed above c.

    Not a field, just a wave function. The suggestion of time lapses is what I don't follow. To me, that makes no sense. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.