Georges, under BA) Transfer among observers OL, OS, OR., you say that as long as there's no confirmation it stays a surmise.
But imagine two entangled particles A1 and A2 at location L1 and L2. Person 1 changes the status of A at L1, which is observed by person 2 at L2. Person 2 then confirms the change by changing the status of particle B2, which is entangled with particles B1 at L1. The change of B1 would be noticed by person 1 at L1. Wouldn't that constitute immediate transfer of information, as well as its confirmation? Cheers! Sam Carana On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Sam, > A quote from "The EPR Paradox" > http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0g_epr.html > > **C-I is based on personal whim of > a few scientists leaving occasionally their enclosure for > unbridled ramble in the labyrinth of pure speculations. What > motivations could they follow? One can only guess, but the > odds seem to point towards frustration, erbittered jealousy > of Relativity, conceit of creating entirely New Physics, > seducing science-fiction of Many Worlds and panpsychistic > religious revelations. > Those seem to fall within the province of lunatic > asylums** > > Not only C-I, but all "interpretations" which consist > in illegitimate reifications of abstractions which hold > exclusively for the Models, but never for their > "reality" territory. > > The present thread, started by your reasonable definition > should have stopped at it, before straying to the loony > bin. > > Georges. > > --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [epistemology 9765] What is Epistemology? >> To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 1:58 AM >> Did you see the article in Scientific American? >> Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's >> Birth >> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce >> >> Cheers! >> Sam Carana >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 12:46 pm, "Henry Kroll" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > If you like esoteria here is one for you: >> > >> > *Black diamonds from space indicate age of universe!** >> *** >> > >> > *If nobody was there to see it, was there a Big Bang? >> The whole idea that >> > such a titanic explosion could come from a single >> point the size smaller >> > than a Planck length 10E-35 meter and then billions of >> years later we are >> > here to explain it may be a creationest manifestation >> of reality. * >> > >> > *"The instant of creation remains >> unexplained." ---Professor Allan Guth of >> > MIT* >> > >> > *"The actual point of creation lies outside the >> scope of present day known >> > physics." ---Stephan Hawking * >> > >> > *Can science verify a consciousness? Are there >> watchers who protect us from >> > ourselves or is it quantum entanglement? Are we >> uncouscously shareing >> > quantum entanglement? Is there a God consciousness >> field responsible for >> > creation? "Religion without science is >> blind." What if we could acieve >> > consciousness enlightment individually? * >> > >> > *I am still not convinced that there was a big bang >> for a number of reasons. >> > The newest space telescopes are now seeing galaxies >> out to 14 billion light >> > years and they seem to be speeding away from us at >> increasing velocities >> > nearing the speed of light. For all we know photons >> might rund down and >> > shift to the red after traveling 14-billion light >> years. We just don't know. >> > The Big Bang theory is probably a religious >> manifestation of reality. * >> > >> > In fact, the Big Bang theory was invented by the >> Catholic Church. "What!" >> > you say. "I thought Edwin Hubble invented the Big >> Bang theory." Well, that's >> > not quite correct. A Catholic monk, George Lemaitre, >> first proposed the Big >> > Bang theory in 1927. American, Edwin Hubble published >> the idea in 1929 two >> > years after the Catholic Church grabbed onto the idea. >> It was Hubble that >> > attached the mathematics to the idea in an attempt to >> make sense of it. The >> > Catholics invented the idea to unite the Biblical idea >> of creation with >> > science at the time. You can't make something out >> of nothing. The >> > fundamental laws of physics specifically state this of >> in order to explain >> > the creation of all matter in the universe in an >> instant from an >> > infinitesimally-small, microscopic point you have to >> have an event with >> > infinite energy. The Catholic Church endorsed the Big >> Bang Theory because it >> > fit the Biblical creation paradigm, that there is an >> infinite God or YHWH. >> > >> > After Hubble published the theory the Church heralded >> it as proof that the >> > bible was scientifically accurate and "Divine >> Truth." Scholars have been >> > debating the validity of this theory for decades. >> > >> > *BIG BANG DOES NOT CONTRADICT CREATION* >> > >> > If the Big Bang theory is a reality, according to my >> reasoning it does not >> > contradict the Biblical six-day creation theory. Say >> for example, if God >> > were going to set off a firecracker big enough to >> create everything he would >> > need at lease a couple days head-start to get his >> spaceship up to light >> > speed before it went off. This might keep him ahead of >> the blast just far >> > enough to survive because he would be traveling at >> 99.9999 percent the speed >> > of light and his time would be slowed down to nothing. >> > >> > Our present knowledge of physics dictates that 12 to >> 13 billion years will >> > have passed while God traveling near the speed of >> light only experienced a >> > time elapse of three days. He would have had to set >> the charge just right to >> > create third dimensional matter. One way of doing this >> would be to create >> > lots of ORME atoms first which he could control with >> his brain waves. Then >> > he would use these particles to transmute the >> necessary elements to support >> > life in all it various forms. >> > >> > During the 12 to 14 billion years of time matter was >> supposed to have >> > expanded, destroying and recreated again into its >> present state God would >> > have had to regulate this process with brain waves. It >> would take God >> > another day or so to slow down from light speed, find >> a suitable world or >> > worlds, and push them into the correct orbits to >> support life. Then he >> > would have to find a moon to regulate the life cycles >> and get somebody to >> > man it. Hence "The Man in The Moon." Then he >> would have to take off again to >> > put a few billion more worlds into orbits everywhere. >> Finally on the sixth >> > day he would come back to find a world teeming with >> life (dinosaurs) of >> > every description. Then he would have to put hunters >> down there with big >> > guns to kill off the dinosaurs. >> > >> > The oxygen levels would have to be high enough to >> support animal life so >> > obviously he would have to put in orbit near a white >> dwarf star so that the >> > phytoplankton and diatoms would do their job of >> mopping up the CO2 releasing >> > oxygen for so-called higher life forms to breathe. >> God would then have to >> > kill off most of the animal life that is harmful to >> man and then create the >> > first man to have dominion over what he created. The >> easiest and most cost >> > effective way to do this is to divert a meteor into >> the Earth. Obviously, >> > God had lots of deck-hands or helpers (Angels) to do >> this. >> > >> > By this time, advanced civilizations throughout the >> Universe and planets in >> > other galaxies would have had a much longer time to >> evolve and be capable of >> > space travel. They were very interested in Earth >> because it had such a high >> > pressure atmosphere that was 1/3 CO2, the gas >> necessary for the creation of >> > all life, carbon being the perfect molecule to bond >> cell membranes. The >> > great pyramid is a model of a carbon molecule. They >> would have come to earth >> > many times in the past to help mankind evolve. The >> latest data shows that >> > man's DNA is a composite of 22 different alien >> species. We have lots of >> > relatives! >> > >> > They came down here and took some chimpanzee DNA, >> mixed in 22 of their own >> > specie and turned them loose to see if they would kill >> each other off. This >> > was done to eliminate a galactic war. We do the >> fighting why they stand back >> > and bet on the contestants. >> > >> > Einstein, being a member of the Christian-Jewish >> community was forced to go >> > along with the Big Bang theory but he had his >> reservations. He wondered >> > where the energy came from in the first place. There >> was no way he could >> > explain an infinitely small space creating enough >> energy to make everything. >> > Then when you get into expansion theory, science turns >> into science fiction. >> > >> > There is no way mankind can advance when he lets >> religion dictate what is >> > real and not real. Mankind will never discover the >> true meaning of God when >> > he forces his own ideas upon reality. If he is allowed >> to persist in this >> > fruitless endeavor he will never discover the truth. >> > >> > So, when did time begin? In Scientific American May >> 2004 issue: "Science >> > does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least >> two potentially testable >> > theories plausibly hold that the universe-and >> therefore time-existed well >> > before the "big bang" (I don't think >> there was one). If either scenario is >> > right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, >> even if it re-collapses >> > one day, it will never end." >> > >> > *When will our galaxy collide with Andromeda?*** >> > >> > "Current measurements suggest that, I about >> 3-billion years, the Milky Way >> > and Andromeda may collide." –John Dubendki >> Hayden Planetarium University of >> > Toronto, Canada. This is more evidence that there is >> no such thing as a big >> > bang forcing the universe to expand. Galaxies >> wouldn't be colliding if they >> > are getting further apart! >> > >> > If the Universe is expanding then why are galaxies >> colliding? Shouldn't they >> > be getting further apart? The huge number of colliding >> galaxies throw >> > another monkey wrench into the big bang theory. >> Einstein wasn't completely >> > convinced that there is such a thing as a big bang but >> he went along with it >> > to placate the status quo. To read more of >> Einstein's ideas on this subject >> > and others read my book, Cosmological Ice >> Ages.www.GuardDogBooks.com<http://www.guarddogbooks.com/>&www.AlaskaPublishing.com<http://www.alaskapublishing.com/> >> > >> > *Then there is the fact that as we (our sun) travels >> through space while >> > orbiting the galaxy we encounter very old red dwarf >> stars. These are burn't >> > out crisps so old that they could possibly be left >> over from prevous big >> > bangs. One of these stars is Banard's Star 5.88 >> light years to the northwest >> > coming toward us at 14.5 kilometers per second.* >> > >> > *All elements decay only it take any billions of years >> for uranium to turn >> > into lead. All the heavy elements above iron are >> created in stellar >> > explosions. The number of heavy elements on the >> surface of the Earth >> > convinces me that the cosmos is very very old. First >> of all a star has to >> > evolve and cook for billions of years until it burns >> off all the hydrogen. >> > Then the helium starts to burn and finally after >> billions more years it will >> > swell up into a giant red or shrink down into a white >> dwarf. Sometimes the >> > explosion is so violent that the star will shrink down >> into a neutron star >> > or even a black hole. All this takes time—impossible >> measures of time. If we >> > knew more we could determine the age of any planet by >> the carious >> > compositions of elements in the crust. A younger >> planet would have less time >> > to collect heavy elements.* >> > >> > *They built the Panama Canal with black diamonds. The >> cutting tools used to >> > slice through the rock were made of black diamonds. >> Large black diamonds can >> > only come from space. A red dwarf is too hot to make >> black diamonds and >> > stars are definitely too hot so the only other >> explanation is that they came >> > from black dwarfs. * >> > >> > *The simple fact that black diamonds from space exist >> is partial proof that >> > black dwarfs exist. If black dwarfs are a reality then >> the universe is tens >> > of billions of years older than present >> estimates—possibly eternal.* >> > >> > *Stars smaller than our Sun would eventually after >> tens of billions of years >> > use up all their fuel. Carbon bubbling away in the >> left over hydrogen and >> > nitrogen gas for billions of years formed large >> diamond crystals one meter >> > in diameter. Such large diamonds could only have >> formed under the heat and >> > pressure of a burnt out star known as a black ... >> > >> > read more » >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
