>> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, crackpot:
>On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote:
>> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 t
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
-TD
From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:30:30 -0600 (CST)
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote:
> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wr
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,
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
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 (ph
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
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 o
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo