11 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidThat 100 light years is not as instant as 2 yards 6 inches.
Then what is your point?
11 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidWhat is yours? We just exposed yours as being an extremely stupid straw man lie that convinces nobody here and only shows us all you are a moron. NOBODY here has ever said/implied the speed of light isn't finite.
Then what is your point?
12 Mar 20
@mister-moggy saidexactly my point ...I never asked anything regarding the speed of light. (but that might be involved in the transfer of information)...even entangled information...
@ogb
since there is instant play in entanglemnt there cannot be any "time" between them.
13 Mar 20
@humy saidThen why are you arguing with me? You know full well that has been my position all along. You implied QE was instantaneous and it is not. To say so is to say light speed is instantaneous and it is not. You are being dishonest and you are flip flopping.
What is yours? We just exposed yours as being an extremely stupid straw man lie that convinces nobody here and only shows us all you are a moron. NOBODY here has ever said/implied the speed of light isn't finite.
Either the speed of light is instantaneous or it is not. Are you willing to admit light speed is not instantaneous or are you going to keep being dishonest and flip flop some more?
13 Mar 20
@Metal-Brain My apologies..I agree that the speed of light is not instantaneous . But QM might have some additional features to entanglement, like the instantaneous transfer of information... w/o using light..
13 Mar 20
@ogb saidWhat a bizarre post!
Our scientists are lagging behind and should provide answers to QM behaviour...
Lagging behind what?
And why "should" they provide answers?
13 Mar 20
@ogb
You can't use QE to send information faster than the speed of light. That is solid. It doesn't matter HOW two things are entangled and if one gets measured the other one crashes and burns you cannot use that process to get information faster than the speed of light.
13 Mar 20
7 edits
@metal-brain said
Then why are you arguing with me? You know full well that has been my position all along. You implied QE was instantaneous and it is not. To say so is to say light speed is instantaneous and it is not. You are being dishonest and you are flip flopping.
Either the speed of light is instantaneous or it is not. Are you willing to admit light speed is not instantaneous or are you going to keep being dishonest and flip flop some more?
You implied QE was instantaneous ...NO, I NEVER implied this. I said and said again that science still hasn't yet told us whether it is and there are some physicists that are much smarter than you or I and know and understand a LOT more about it than your or I who do that think it is instantaneous and yet others about equally smart that say that apparent instantaneousness is illusionary. The scientific jury is still out on that one.
...and it is not.How would YOU, the delusionally arrogant ignorant non-expert moron with no science credentials, know that QE is NOT instantaneous? We will never take your ignorant word for it but rather we may take the word of a real expert.
To say so is to say light speed is instantaneousNO, it OBVIOUSLY isn't. HOW is saying QE is instantaneous is saying c is? You have never explained this. QE is NOT c, moron!
Are you willing to admit light speed is not instantaneous...So you persist in your same old unconvincing stupid straw man that convinces absolutely nobody here and just convinces all readers here you are just a complete moron.
NONE of us here, including I, has ever said/implied in any way that c isn't finite.
13 Mar 20
1 edit
@sonhouse saidA very sound and credible theory about QE.. the instructions or (information) from one entangled particle is transmitted via another DIMENSION, thereby taking zero time in our dimension. So distance isn't a factor, and the laws of light not being infinite still remain. This can be referred to as the OGB theory....
@ogb
You can't use QE to send information faster than the speed of light. That is solid. It doesn't matter HOW two things are entangled and if one gets measured the other one crashes and burns you cannot use that process to get information faster than the speed of light.
13 Mar 20
@ogb
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/#3e4792723a1e
This article shows why you can't use QE to send information faster than c.
@sonhouse saidArr you are forgetting to take into account a double negative there that makes a positive! As I often have found from bitter experience from reading other peoples's posts, an easy thing to miss if you try and read too fast!
@humy
I think you mean 'isn't INFINITE' since c is about 300,000 km/second.
My exact words where "NONE of us here, including I, has ever said/implied in any way that c isn't finite." and the words "NONE" and "isn't" are the two negatives in that quote that make that a positive (and a positive for indirectly implying c is finite).