--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [epistemology 9774] What is Epistemology?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 11:22 AM
> Georges, under BA) Transfer among observers OL, OS, OR., you
> say that
> as long as there's no confirmation it stays a surmise.
==================
G:
So it does. No matter how high gets for OL the probability
at OR after OL's measure, it stays probability and not
knowledge. For all OL knows, the particle at OR may not
exist at all.
==================
>
> 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
=============
G:
It would in some science fiction imaginary world, but not
in ours. In ours, the entanglement happens at the moment
when a neutral pion at rest at position OS decays into
a pair of photons entangled by their opposite, canceling
one another spins, by virtue of momentum preservation.
Afterwards, there is no question of re-entangeling,
changing the entanglement, etc., but exclusively of
measuring and impacts thereof. Shelving the additional
problem of blurring, OL can measure HIS spin and
surmise that of OR, but not KNOW it, nor even if the
photon at OR still exists.
And the essential. Lacking the continuous pole of the
fundamental cognitive polarity continuum/discreteness,
QM is a recipe of formulas, doubtless brilliant, but
lacking any phenomenal sense.
Why does everybody prattle about QM Enigmas, but not about
QFT or GR? Because the latter are rational physical Models
needing thorough work to be understood and have no
mystery-appeal of bad science fiction or phantasmagorial
panpsychism or visitors from other worlds.
Cheers
Georges.
================
>
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
