http://arxivblog.com/?p=460
"Entanglement is the strange and beautiful property of certain quantum
particles to become so deeply linked that they share the same
existence. According to quantum theory, that link should be maintained
whatever the distance between the particles, whether the width of an
atom or the diameter of the universe. This led Einstein to claim that
the instantaneous effects of entanglement would lead to “spooky action-
at-a-distance” in violation of special relativity which prevents
faster-than-light signals. Nobody knows how the different predictions
of relativity and quantum mechanics can be resolved."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "I expect that the scientists of the future will
consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much
the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still
and the Universe moves around it."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev

On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva> wrote:
[..]
>
> [..]
> Bryan Wallace: "I expect that the scientists of the future will
> consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much
> the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many
> angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still
> and the Universe moves around it."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Where exactly are the incompatible absurdities?

kp

On Jun 11, 9:43 pm, kp <4vec> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where exactly are the incompatible absurdities?

The theory that predicts that the bug is both squashed and not
squashed:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

and that a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

is incompatible with the theory that predicts teleportation:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...tart:int=1&-C=
Michio Kaku: "Perhaps the most tangible of the far-out technologies
suggested by Einstein’s theories is teleportation. The key lies in a
celebrated 1935 paper (doc) by Einstein and his colleagues Boris
Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. Ironically, in their paper they proposed an
experiment—the so-called EPR experiment, named for the three authors—
to kill off, once and for all, quantum theory’s introduction of
probability into physics. Quantum theory requires probability because
its formulas do not directly describe things like the precise position
of particles. Instead, the formulas describe waves, known as
Schrödinger waves. The amplitude of the waves at a particular location
translates to the probability that a particle will be found at that
point. As the EPR experiment pointed out, according to quantum theory,
if two particles—electrons, for example—are initially vibrating in
unison (a state called coherence), they can remain in wavelike
synchronization even if they are separated by a large distance. Two
electrons may be trillions of miles apart, but there is still an
invisible Schrödinger wave connecting them, like an umbilical cord. If
something happens to one electron, some of that information is
immediately transmitted to the other, faster than the speed of light.
This concept—that particles vibrating in coherence have some kind of
deep connection—is called quantum entanglement."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev> wrote in message
news:0754
>The theory that predicts that the bug is both squashed and not
>squashed:

> [..]

Stupid asses thinking speed alone (without collisions) changes
physical length.
(damn rubber rulers!)
:)

>and that a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn:

> [..]

Oh look, same thing.
rubber ruler worshippers screaming about how there rulers are rubber!
LOL

>is incompatible with the theory that predicts teleportation:

>
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...tart:int=1&-C=

LOL
Oh, no, the malfunctioning clocks created that too now?
Silly time travel rubber ruler worshippers.
some day they may come back to science.
but not any "time" soon.
Can' they see the problem lies in the malfunctioning clocks
and having a meter (distance) that is determined by a certain
speed (distance per time)
Sheesh
how scientifically unscientific.
LOL

On Jun 11, 10:17 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva> wrote:
[..]
> synchronization even if they are separated by a large distance. Two
> electrons may be trillions of miles apart, but there is still an
> invisible Schrödinger wave connecting them, like an umbilical cord. If
> something happens to one electron, some of that information is
> immediately transmitted to the other, faster than the speed of light.
> This concept—that particles vibrating in coherence have some kind of
> deep connection—is called quantum entanglement."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

As far as SR goes there us nothing incompatible in these examples.
They maybe counter intuitive but that doesn't mean they are
unphysical.

kp

"kp" <4vector> wrote in message
news:147e
>As far as SR goes there us nothing incompatible in these examples.
>They maybe counter intuitive but that doesn't mean they are
>unphysical.

unphysical?
like the "observational" change of length with speed yet with no
physical proof of such ever occuring?
or like the observational proof that all clocks that are not
in your frame have slowed down according to your clock?
PUH LEASE!
It is not a matter of unphysical alone.
It is a matter of non-scientific at all.
rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks is
all they have to keep the "rubber sheet" Universe
spinning.
:)

The time travel thing has got to be the most stupid of all
too.
Until you can move the Entire Universe at your will,
no time traveling will be occuring because the planets and stars
could care less about any clock malfunctions that are being
called "time changing rate".
And don't forget to make the flowers grow backwards if you
are traveling back in time.
:)

On Jun 11, 3:17 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 9:43 pm, kp <4vec> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The theory that predicts that the bug is both squashed and not
> squashed:
>
> [..]

It doesn't. It is definitely squashed, according to the theory,
despite your link.

>
> and that a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn:

That's not an absurdity. You have an additional assumption in your
head that's making it absurd that is not a justified assumption. You
are assuming that length is something that is frame-independent --
this is what you think "physically real" means. It isn't, and it
doesn't. The fact that an 80m long pole (as measured in one frame) can
get trapped inside a barn that is 40m long (as measured in another
frame) is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics, though your
assumption needs to be discarded as unnecessary and inconsistent with
the laws of physics.

>
> is incompatible with the theory that predicts teleportation:

And why is that an incompatible absurdity? Entanglement is not
teleportation. Are you having conceptual difficulties?

PD

"PD" <TheDraperFamily> wrote in message
news:58df
>You are assuming that length is something that is frame-independent --
>this is what you think "physically real" means.

Physical length is frame independant
It is however optical dependant for illusion of length.
unless you use rubber rulers.
Imagine that!
LOL

On Jun 12, 12:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam> wrote:
[..]
>>
> That's not an absurdity. You have an additional assumption in your
> head that's making it absurd that is not a justified assumption. You
> are assuming that length is something that is frame-independent --
> this is what you think "physically real" means. It isn't, and it
> doesn't. The fact that an 80m long pole (as measured in one frame) can
> get trapped inside a barn that is 40m long (as measured in another
> frame) is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics

How long is the pole already trapped inside the barn (the doors have
stopped it so it is at rest in the barn's frame now)? 80m? 40m? What
do the laws of physics say?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev

"Spaceman" <spaceman> wrote in message
news:nz2d
[..]
> no time traveling will be occuring because the planets and stars
> could care less about any clock malfunctions that are being
> called "time changing rate".
> And don't forget to make the flowers grow backwards if you
> are traveling back in time.
> :)
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

If a space traveler travels from Sol to a star ten light years from Sol
[in two years], how far away from the star, in light years, is Sol observed
to be? How many years is that? In what direction of time, observed?

What does the traveler observe of the star to his front -- observe of the
ten light years, the nine light years, the eight light years, the four, the
two, the one light year, the one light day -- each second, minute, hour, day
and year of the voyage? What does the traveler observe concerning Sol
(getting to be ten light years away) to his rear, each second, minute, day
and year?

Observationally, the traveler starts out already backward in time (-10
years ("all history universe")) regarding his destination (0 ("as is
universe"))! He has to cross that ten light years in addition to his travel
time, within his travel time! Internally he logs two years of travel time.
Externally he observes twelve years of travel time inside that logged two
years of travel time. At the end of the voyage, one way to the star, Sol is
ten light years away (-10 years ("all history universe"), observed.

No physicist on Earth will start any traveler out in minus time to the
destination (already backward in time vis-a-vis the destination). No
physicist on Earth recognizes the existence of an "all history universe" or
its relationship to light. Not a single one!

Of course no traveler is ever going to travel backward in time because
distantly (however distantly) backward in time is the starting gate. The
traveler is already there (to as much as 13.7 billion, or 75
billion....whatever, years backward in time).

GLB

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [snip]

Comme tu es un lâche, tu ne t'en prends qu'à un mort : il ne peut plus
répondre.

Si tu n'étais que semi-poltron tu t'en prendrais à un vivant.

On Jun 11, 5:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space>
wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam> wrote in message
>
> news:58df
>
> >You are assuming that length is something that is frame-independent --
> >this is what you think "physically real" means.
>
> Physical length is frame independant

You claim that but you don't know that.
Your contention that nature is what you say it is, even if
measurements are always masked to not reveal that, is an amusing and
highly unscientific one.
[..]

On Jun 11, 6:29 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> How long is the pole already trapped inside the barn (the doors have
> stopped it so it is at rest in the barn's frame now)? 80m? 40m? What
> do the laws of physics say?

In the barn frame, the pole is less than 40 m long, so there's no
problem closing both doors simultaneously and having the pole be
inside. Of course, a short moment later the front of the pole hits the
closed barn door and decelerates it and compresses it, a signal that
has to travel from the front of the pole to the back of the pole.

In the pole frame, the doors do not close simultaneously. The front
door closes first and the front of the pole hits that door,
decelerating and compressing the pole. The signal that the front has
stopped has to make its way to the back of the pole, which is
proceeding forward, unaware that the front of the pole has stopped.
This signal takes a finite amount of time, traveling at a speed less
than c. The rear of the pole passes inside the still-open rear barn
door, and a moment later the rear door shuts, and a moment after that,
the compression signal from the front of the pole arrives at the back
of the pole, and the back of the pole stops.

Both descriptions are consistent with the same laws of physics in each
frame, which is of course what the principle of relativity requires.
Many folks make the mistake of saying that the description of how the
events transpire must be the same, according to the principle of
relativity, but that is not what the principle of relativity says.

PD

"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01> wrote in message
news:nz2d
> If a space traveler travels from Sol to a star ten light years from Sol
> [in two years], how far away from the star, in light years, is Sol
observed
> to be? How many years is that? In what direction of time, observed?
>
> What does the traveler observe of the star to his front -- observe of
the
> ten light years, the nine light years, the eight light years, the four,
the
> two, the one light year, the one light day -- each second, minute, hour,
day
> and year of the voyage? What does the traveler observe concerning Sol
> (getting to be ten light years away) to his rear, each second, minute, day
> and year?
>
> Observationally, the traveler starts out already backward in time (-10
> years ("all history universe")) regarding his destination (0 ("as is
> universe"))! He has to cross that ten light years in addition to his
travel
> time, within his travel time! Internally he logs two years of travel time.
> Externally he observes twelve years of travel time inside that logged two
> years of travel time. At the end of the voyage, one way to the star, Sol
is
> ten light years away (-10 years ("all history universe"), observed.
>
> No physicist on Earth will start any traveler out in minus time to the
> destination (already backward in time vis-a-vis the destination). No
> physicist on Earth recognizes the existence of an "all history universe"
or
> its relationship to light. Not a single one!
>
> Of course no traveler is ever going to travel backward in time because
> distantly (however distantly) backward in time is the starting gate. The
> traveler is already there (to as much as 13.7 billion, or 75
> billion....whatever, years backward in time).

Dear G.L.
You have it pretty much correct, but when you add relativies clock
instead of an "absolute time" like you are using above.
You will have clocks slowing down and distances not being the same
that is why relativity is a joke for the reality of spacetravel.
It goes all wrong and you crash into planets that should not have been
there according to the ship clock.

"PD" <TheDraperFamily> wrote in message
news:e27d
>You claim that but you don't know that.

Nope,
physical length is not frame dependant (view dependant)
I know this for a fact.
Did such in about 5th grade science in school.
Triangulation finds facts of such every single day.
sheesh!