Quantum Entanglement
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 15 May 2010 17:16 On May 15, 1:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 15, 8:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 8:29 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > So, there are many roads to the correct solution, and those roads may > > > > > be very different from each other, but they produce identical results > > > > > and are therefore equivalent. > > > > > > So, QM may be regarded as being complete, or not, and we can never > > > > > know if it is or not. And this is because there are many different > > > > > ways to model it, and we have no way to say if a particuler approach > > > > > should be retained or discarded. We cannot know if QM is complete or > > > > > not, but at the same time it may be safely regarded as being complete, > > > > > or not. "It is a paradox, or perhaps it isnt", and that is the most > > > > > technically precise way for me to explain the way I view QM. > > > > > QM can not be complete because it is of a statistical nature. > > > > > Physics is of a physical nature. > > > > Wherever you see a random variable in QM, you should (theoretically) > > > be able to remove that random variable and replace it with "sensitive > > > dependence on initiaial conditions". You should be able to eliminate > > > all of the ransom variables that way, and QM wouldnot longer be > > > stochastic - or "random". > > > > Alternatively, whereever you see a term in QM which is _not_ a random > > > variable, it should be replaceable with a random variable even if only > > > trivially i.e. random variables with zero variance. You could do that > > > with the rest of physics as well and argue that the whole universe is > > > fundamentally stochastic. > > > > So - you could argue either way - random or nonrandom. It MUST be a > > > superposition of these because there is no way to really choose one > > > over the other. > > > 'Probabilistic', 'probability', and 'function' are mathematical > > constructs. If the terms exist in the theory then the theory can not > > be complete because the terms are of a statistical nature. > > > It may be the best that can be concluded at any point in time if the > > underlying physical processes are unknown. That does not make it > > complete. > > > Physics is of a physical nature. In order to have a complete theory it > > must be of a physical nature. > > > Aether Displacement is of a physical nature. > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > Aether is physically displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > Gravity is the physical pressure exerted by the aether towards the > > matter. > > > A moving particle physically displaces the aether. > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > The particle is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit > > because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. > > > In Aether Displacement, mass is conserved. > > > If physics was able to understand the difference between a theory > > being of a statistical nature and a theory being of a physical nature > > then physics would have a much better understanding of the physics of > > nature. > > > Physics will not truly advance until understanding any theory of a > > statistical nature is incomplete.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Regardless of what tools you use to make models you will always have > to confront the issue of paradox. > > I really dont have any problem whatsoever with the idea that aether is > displaced much like a fluid. I really dont have a problem with that at > all. But here's the question - you must be able to say that the > universe can be modelled with such displacements, and also without > such displacements. I feel that both are neccesary for _your_ model to > be complete, just look at GR. Spece can be viewed as being bent, or > not. They are equivalent, because a gravity field is equivalent to > accelerating in a rocket. So is space bent by gravity ? The correct > answer is that it is and also is not because these things are > equivalent. > > Somehow - your displacements must do the same thing. That's my view on > it anyway. The faster an object moves with respect to the aether the greater the aether pressure exerted on and throughout the object. If the object is moving with constant momentum the aether pressure exerted on and throughout the object is equally applied throughout the object. When accelerating the pressure applied by the aether towards and throughout the object is not equally applied. Think of displaced aether as 'displacing back'. When an object is accelerating it takes time for the 'displacing back' to 'catch up' where the object had been. This is how the effect of gravity due to displacement by a massive object and displaced due to acceleration have the same physical effect. The aether displaced by the Earth is 'displacing back' towards the Earth. The pressure applied towards us by the aether where we are right now is not being equally applied throughout our our bodies. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth is greater as applied towards the center of the Earth. In an accelerating space ship the same effect is occurring. The pressure applied toward the astronaut in the space ship is not equally applied throughout the astronauts body. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the space ship is greater as applied towards the back of the space ship.
From: mpc755 on 15 May 2010 19:42 On May 15, 5:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 15, 1:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 8:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 15, 8:29 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > So, there are many roads to the correct solution, and those roads may > > > > > > be very different from each other, but they produce identical results > > > > > > and are therefore equivalent. > > > > > > > So, QM may be regarded as being complete, or not, and we can never > > > > > > know if it is or not. And this is because there are many different > > > > > > ways to model it, and we have no way to say if a particuler approach > > > > > > should be retained or discarded. We cannot know if QM is complete or > > > > > > not, but at the same time it may be safely regarded as being complete, > > > > > > or not. "It is a paradox, or perhaps it isnt", and that is the most > > > > > > technically precise way for me to explain the way I view QM. > > > > > > QM can not be complete because it is of a statistical nature. > > > > > > Physics is of a physical nature. > > > > > Wherever you see a random variable in QM, you should (theoretically) > > > > be able to remove that random variable and replace it with "sensitive > > > > dependence on initiaial conditions". You should be able to eliminate > > > > all of the ransom variables that way, and QM wouldnot longer be > > > > stochastic - or "random". > > > > > Alternatively, whereever you see a term in QM which is _not_ a random > > > > variable, it should be replaceable with a random variable even if only > > > > trivially i.e. random variables with zero variance. You could do that > > > > with the rest of physics as well and argue that the whole universe is > > > > fundamentally stochastic. > > > > > So - you could argue either way - random or nonrandom. It MUST be a > > > > superposition of these because there is no way to really choose one > > > > over the other. > > > > 'Probabilistic', 'probability', and 'function' are mathematical > > > constructs. If the terms exist in the theory then the theory can not > > > be complete because the terms are of a statistical nature. > > > > It may be the best that can be concluded at any point in time if the > > > underlying physical processes are unknown. That does not make it > > > complete. > > > > Physics is of a physical nature. In order to have a complete theory it > > > must be of a physical nature. > > > > Aether Displacement is of a physical nature. > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > Aether is physically displaced by matter. > > > Displacement creates pressure. > > > Gravity is the physical pressure exerted by the aether towards the > > > matter. > > > > A moving particle physically displaces the aether. > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > The particle is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit > > > because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > and matter is energy. > > > > In Aether Displacement, mass is conserved. > > > > If physics was able to understand the difference between a theory > > > being of a statistical nature and a theory being of a physical nature > > > then physics would have a much better understanding of the physics of > > > nature. > > > > Physics will not truly advance until understanding any theory of a > > > statistical nature is incomplete.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Regardless of what tools you use to make models you will always have > > to confront the issue of paradox. > > > I really dont have any problem whatsoever with the idea that aether is > > displaced much like a fluid. I really dont have a problem with that at > > all. But here's the question - you must be able to say that the > > universe can be modelled with such displacements, and also without > > such displacements. I feel that both are neccesary for _your_ model to > > be complete, just look at GR. Spece can be viewed as being bent, or > > not. They are equivalent, because a gravity field is equivalent to > > accelerating in a rocket. So is space bent by gravity ? The correct > > answer is that it is and also is not because these things are > > equivalent. > > > Somehow - your displacements must do the same thing. That's my view on > > it anyway. > > The faster an object moves with respect to the aether the greater the > aether pressure exerted on and throughout the object. If the object is > moving with constant momentum the aether pressure exerted on and > throughout the object is equally applied throughout the object. > > When accelerating the pressure applied by the aether towards and > throughout the object is not equally applied. Think of displaced > aether as 'displacing back'. When an object is accelerating it takes > time for the 'displacing back' to 'catch up' where the object had > been. > > This is how the effect of gravity due to displacement by a massive > object and displaced due to acceleration have the same physical > effect. The aether displaced by the Earth is 'displacing back' towards > the Earth. The pressure applied towards us by the aether where we are > right now is not being equally applied throughout our our bodies. The > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth is greater > as applied towards the center of the Earth. > > In an accelerating space ship the same effect is occurring. The > pressure applied toward the astronaut in the space ship is not equally > applied throughout the astronauts body. The pressure associated with > the aether displaced by the space ship is greater as applied towards > the back of the space ship. The analogy is a particle moving through a frictionless superfluid. If the particle is moving with constant momentum then the frictionless superfluid is applying pressure equally to all parts of the particle or the particle does not have constant momentum. If the particle is accelerating then the pressure applied by the frictionless superfluid to the front of the particle is greater than the pressure applied to the back of the particle. Instead of a particle there is space ship with millions of tiny holes throughout it and the frictionless superfluid behaves as a one something. The space ship is accelerating. Not only is the pressure exerted by the superfluid greater on the front of the space ship than it is on the back of the space ship, the pressure exerted by the superfluid is greater on the front of the objects in the space ship than it is on the back of the objects in the space ship. The frictionless superfluid behaving as a one something is the aether. This is the same effect the aether has when the aether is displaced by a massive object.
From: mpc755 on 3 Jun 2010 10:35 On May 15, 4:15 pm, "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...(a)net-prophet.net> wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:09:32 -0700, Rev. 11D Meow! wrote: > > > On May 15, 12:35 pm, "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...(a)net-prophet.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:06:03 -0700, mpc755 wrote: > >> > On May 15, 8:29 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > So, there are many roads to the correct solution, and those roads > >> >> > > may be very different from each other, but they produce identical > >> >> > > results and are therefore equivalent. > >> > >> >> > > So, QM may be regarded as being complete, or not, and we can > >> >> > > never know if it is or not. And this is because there are many > >> >> > > different ways to model it, and we have no way to say if a > >> >> > > particuler approach should be retained or discarded. We cannot > >> >> > > know if QM is complete or not, but at the same time it may be > >> >> > > regarded as being complete, or not. "It is a paradox, or perhaps > >> >> > > it isnt", and that is the most technically precise way for me to > >> >> > > explain the way I view QM. > >> > >> >> > QM can not be complete because it is of a statistical nature. > >> >> > Physics is of a physical nature. > >> > >> EXACTLY CORRECT! > >> > >> >> Wherever you see a random variable in QM, you should (theoretically) > >> >> be able to remove that random variable and replace it with > >> >> "sensitive dependence on initiaial conditions". You should be able > >> > >> to >> eliminate all of the ransom variables that way, and QM would not > >> > >> >> longer be stochastic - or "random". > >> > >> YES! I agree with that! > >> > >> >> Alternatively, whereever you see a term in QM which is _not_ a random > >> >> variable, it should be replaceable with a random variable even if > >> >> only trivially i.e. random variables with zero variance. You could > >> > >> do >> that with the rest of physics as well and argue that the whole > >> > >> >> universe is fundamentally stochastic. > >> > >> You could, if you were a mathematical idiot! > >> > >> >> So - you could argue either way - random or nonrandom. It MUST be a > >> >> superposition of these because there is no way to really choose one > >> >> over the other. > >> > >> If you are a mathematicl idiot! > >> >> mpc755 wrote: > > >> > 'Probabilistic', 'probability', and 'function' are mathematical > >> > constructs. If the terms exist in the theory then the theory can not > >> > be complete because the terms are of a statistical nature. > >> > >> YOU HAVE A CLUE! > >> > >> > It may be the best that can be concluded at any point in time if the > >> > underlying physical processes are unknown. > >> > >> EXACTLY! THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE! > >> [UNLESS THEY HAVE READ RADO!] > >> > >> > That does not make it complete. > >> > >> OR CORRECT! > >> > >> > Physics is of a physical nature. In order to have a complete theory it > >> > must be of a physical nature. > >> > >> EXACTLY! > >> > >> > Aether Displacement is of a physical nature. > >> > >> YES! > >> > >> JUST AS AETHER IS OF A PHYSICAL NATURE! > >> > >> LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, IT'S MADE OUT OF *PARTICLES*! > >> It is not known if the aether consists of particles or not. The aether behaves as a 'one something'. > >> > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > >> > >> IN THE SENSE THAT MATTER IS JUST > >> MORE COMPLEXLY ARRANGED CONDENSED AETHER. > >> > >> > Aether is physically displaced by matter. > >> > >> YES. > >> JUST AS WATER IS DISPLACED BY A BOAT. JUST AS WATER IS DISPLACED BY ICE! > >> > >> > Displacement creates pressure. > >> > >> YES. > >> > >> BUT THE COSMOSPHERIC PRESSURRE > >> IS ALWAYS THERE IN THE AETHER! > >> > >> > Gravity is the physical pressure exerted by the aether towards the > >> > matter. > >> > >> NO. > >> > >> YOU HAVE IT EXACTLY BACKWARDS! > >> > >> GRAVITY IS THE *SUCTION* CREATED BY THE CONDENSATION OF AETHER INTO > >> MATTER, > >> WHICH LOWERS THE LOCAL PRESSURE > >> AND CAUSES AN AETHERIC INFLOW! > >> The aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter. The pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter is gravity. > >> > A moving particle physically displaces the aether. > >> > >> YES. > >> > >> >A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > >> > >> YES! JUST LIKE A BOAT IN WATER! > >> > >> > The particle is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single slit > >> > because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > >> > >> YES! A PARTICLE ONLY HAS ONE LOCATION! > >> > >> MANY PARTICLES MAKE A WAVE, WHICH HAS MANY LOCATIONS! > >> > >> > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > >> > EINSTEIN' > >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > >> > >> > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > >> > diminishes by L/c2." > >> > >> YES! LIGHT HAS MASS, MOMENTUM AND PRESSURE! > >> > >> > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > >> > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > >> > aether. > >> > >> YES! > >> AETHER IS MATTER! > >> JUST NOT SO COMPLEX! > >> > >> >As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions.. > >> > >> YES! > >> > >> ========================= > >> THAT'S THE *KEY* CONCEPT! > >> ========================= > >> > >> MATTER IS MORE CONDENSED THAN AETHER! > >> > >> SO WHEN AETHER EVOLVES INTO MATTER > >> THE PRESSURE IS ALWAYS *REDUCED*! > >> > >> ====================================== THAT'S THE *SUCTION* KNOWN AS > >> GRAVITY! ====================================== > >> > >> > The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is > >> > energy. > >> > >> AS IN GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY! > >> > >> > In Aether Displacement, mass is conserved. > >> > >> YES! > >> > >> IN MATTER CREATION, MASS IS ALSO CONSERVED! > >> > >> AETHER HAS MASS! > >> > >> > If physics was able to understand the difference between a theory > >> > being of a statistical nature and a theory being of a physical nature > >> > then physics would have a much better understanding of the physics of > >> > nature. > >> > >> COMPLETELY TRUE! > >> > >> > Physics will not truly advance until understanding any theory of a > >> > statistical nature is incomplete. > >> > >> YES! > >> > >> PHYSICS IS VASTLY SENIOR TO STATICAL PROBABILITY! > >> > >> YOU'VE GOT ALL THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE! > >> > >> YOU JUST HAVEN'T ARRANGED THEM ALL YET! > >> > >> READ RADO TO DISCOVER THEMECHANICS! > >>http://www.amazon.com/Aethro-dynamics-Steven-Rado/dp/0966757181 > >> HE PROVIDES AN EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS > >> BASED ON SIMPLE NEWTONIAN MOTION! > >> > >> YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS > >> WITHOUT READING RADO! > >> > >> O > >> --- ) \ > >> > > > So hard-up for attention you're answering your own > > posts now, eh Mister Phony Scientist KONCHOK PENDAY. > > Not at all. I leave that for you! > If you actually READ Rado, your > comments might at least SOUND relevant. > > > Can you please tell the world why you are the only one on this God- > > forsaken planet who believes this bullshit you advertise, huh mister? > > Actually, there are quite a number of us! > Why don't you stop by and visit?http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/aethro-kinematics/?yguid=432912427 > Be sure to bring your brain, if you can find it! > > > Did you catch your boomerang yet? > > You keep throwing it, but it nevers returns. > > I keep throwing it. > You keep bringing it back! > All chewed up! > > > I wonder why that is so. > > You seem to be obsessive-compulsive about > chewing on things you just can't understand! > > I suggest you learn to read. > > It really helps! > > O > --- ) > \ > > NEWSGROUPS: > alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Light Compression Experiment Next: Google Adsense Account Approval Tricks |