On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
Replying to Blah Jim Choate wrote...
It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against
which speeds must be referenced.
Wrong.
OK, Senior Choate,
Pot, Kettle, Black. You should consider asking Tim for membership in the
CACL
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote:
From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote:
Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is
-no- time.
A photon has no perspective.
Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of
From: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote:
Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is
-no- time.
A photon has no perspective. Anyone that wishes to have the short
version and skip the detailed corrections to misconceptions, they
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote:
'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
From anyone's perspective.
Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no-
time. It is clear from Relativity that as -anything- approaches the speed
of light it's mass grows larger
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 00:28:46 -0600 (CST)
Jim Choate wrote:
Tim May wrote...
I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating
instantaneously,
'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
From anyone's
Actually, Tyler Durden (ie, me) wrote what is attributed to the generic
anonymous name of Norman Nescio. Anyway,...
Part of the problem is that the detection equipment is many fermions
looking at single particles. I think QM is easier to understand when
looking at an ion trap. There are lots
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
Actually, Tyler Durden (ie, me) wrote what is attributed to the generic
anonymous name of Norman Nescio. Anyway,...
Yeah, the TD gave that away :-)
With all due respect, Pooey Dr Mike. Take a nice, straightforward EPR using
two correlated photons
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Tim May wrote...
I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating
instantaneously,
'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
Yes, this has been a fashionable set of
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote:
One way out is to ditch quantum mechanics as being anything near a
description of reality as classical theories in essence are. Tim Boyer
of CUNY and a batch of Italian researchers have done a pretty convincing
job of showing that Ahranov-Bohm can be
