swansont

! Moderator Note We’ve been ready for some time. You keep promising to present your case, and have had ample opportunity to do so, but have squandered this opportunity in favor of delay and distraction. If your next post doesn’t contain the “evidence” you’ve promised, we’re done here.

It’s what we informally call coincidence If it were one reply per minute, the primes don’t matter - that’s an issue of when you sampled. But only two data points - that’s not statistically significant. And only noticing because they match and are prime can be confirmation bias. Or it’s aliens.

If you know their spins, they aren’t entangled. Yes, interaction without entanglement is possible.

Something emitting green light, falling, was caught on the body cam. Nothing else was. It was, indeed, unidentified. All those other people, and not a smartphone among them.

You would have to have an interaction where you no longer knew the individual spins for them to be entangled.

! Moderator Note Simple solution: don’t cite it, or any other unreliable source. It distracts from the conversation.

! Moderator Note Chat GPT is known to give inaccurate information. It gives plausible-sounding results, not accurate results. It should never be used in this fashion. It is not a credible source.

! Moderator Note If your questions are about DNA, this should not impact the discussion at all. As in, it should not be brought up, by anyone.

If you know A has spin up, or B has spin down, then the particles are not entangled. Entanglement could only occur if you don’t know the individual spins, but know the total spin of the pair (zero, in this case) Interaction strength tends to drop off with distance. It’s how it works.

It’s fictional because that’s not how entanglement works. B isn’t in an eigenstate, it’s in a superposition, so there is no change from one eigenstate to another, and since it wasn’t in an eigenstate, measuring the state doesn’t transmit any signal. You have to tell the other end via normal communication.

The device you describe is fiction. Entanglement does not detect a change of state of a particle. The particle is in an undetermined state. When it’s measured, you can then send that information to the other detector to compare. That signal is limited to traveling at c.

He refers to it as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. Not measurement. If it’s constant, though, one can measure that. But the law is the invariance, not the measurement. The latter is just you making stuff up. Who claims it’s been “proved 100%”? Are you making this up, too? It’s not “Einstein believing” The invariance of c is rooted in electrodynamics and pops out of Maxwell’s equations. But it’s not “Maxwell-believing” (or Heaviside, or Faraday, or Lorentz, etc.). The “belief” is in the science - because it agrees with experiment - not the name attached to it. The stuff you’re making up, in order to discredit it. “measurement is not law” Nobody claimed it is. The participants here (other than you, possibly) can follow the math. We/they know it works. And I think everyone is tired of your tap-dancing about what you say you can show. Show it, already. You’re right. You haven’t presented any science to do this. Until you do, we can’t show your analysis to be wrong. (though you’ve been wrong about a number of things, which have been pointed out to you. Not that you’ve acknowledged this)

I did? Can you quote where I said this? It’s based on a real name, so no, it’s not spelled wrong, but that’s not really important. What is important is that it runs afoul of our rules on civility (no insults) and I’m asking you to stop.

Can you point to any discussion where it was asserted the measurements are laws? Otherwise this is a straw man argument.

When you get my user name wrong once, I can assume it’s a typo. When you do it twice in a row, it’s just careless, or possibly intentional. As for the physics, I said nothing of the sort. I was rebutting a claim of yours, and then asking you to support a claim of yours. Trying to “read between the lines” isn’t going to serve you well here. Please stick to what is actually written. Not too difficult to figure out, if you consider the state of affairs in 1905, where it was still assumed that the speed of light would behave like the speed of any other object, i.e. not an invariant quantity, and that length and time were absolute

Repeating this does not clarify what the “entanglement communication device” is. It’s not a category of equipment (as opposed to, say a radio, or a laser, which are common technologies) Does it send photons? If so, the signals arrive at the same time. Does it send one of a particle pair, like electrons? Then it will take longer. As Mordred points out, entanglement is used for encryption. “entanglement communication device” doesn’t describe the communication part. How can you do this, seeing as the light cone expands at c, and the ball travels slower?

A ship can’t move at c. What is this “entanglement communication device”? If it involves sending photons, then the signals arrive at the same time.

It’s scattering off the molecules in the atmosphere, which is everywhere. There’s always going to be some light scattered in your direction As far as the viewing perception goes, I have another anecdote: in my lab I would wear laser safety glasses, which blocked the red (and NIR) part of the spectrum. When I took them off, everything looked pink. My brain had adjusted the perception to include the red that was absent- i.e. it “assumed” white light was present - so I would see the mentally-added red for a minute or so, until my brain readjusted. You can also see more spectacular afterimage effects https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage

What about the Hafele-Keating experiments? The eastbound clocks slowed down, the westbound clocks sped up, relative to clocks in a fixed location on earth. Where does “interpretation” come into play in obtaining these results? You claimed this, but I don’t think you showed or explained anything. Saying they’re irrational doesn’t make it true. Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

No, I’m pretty sure I summarized the basis of relativity accurately. I never mentioned measurement, or claimed that measurements are laws. Einstein provided the equations, which show that time and length are relative. Measurement confirms this. He doesn’t give a value (and certainly not an incorrect one). He just says it’s not a relative value - he refers to the constancy of the speed of light. The second section of the kinematical part

How does the particle get outside the light cone of its entangled partner?

Actually pointing out these alleged errors instead of tap-dancing around the subject; you have yet to post anything with scientific content. Arguing in bad faith gets you in the express lane to the wrath of the moderators.

OK, how do they know, and have had time to send more probes? Why are they showing up at basically the same time?

I used 100 because the math is uncomplicated. If you want to present an analysis of how a rocket can get beyond 0.1c (how much fuel it would take, and how long it must accelerate, etc.) feel free to present it. How would we know, before the first probe sends us the data?

We do thought problems that are physically impossible all the time. Frictionless surfaces, reversible processes. This isn’t a serious objection.