08 Mar 20
4 edits
@metal-brain saidProve it.
"That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE."
The quote is wrong.
I have learned enough about physics from university to happen to know that wiki quote must be correct.
You aren't a physics expert while in contrast those wiki quote was edited by physics experts.
Only a moron will take your ignorant word over it over that of the experts and none of us are morons so we all believe those experts are right about this and you are wrong; just as the experts all say, GPS DO take relativity equations into account.
All the other science weblinks imply the same thing i.e. there is no general disagreement in what the science says about this. They all say/imply GPS takes relativity equations into account.
You convince nobody here.
08 Mar 20
@humy saidThe following is a false statement:
Prove it.
I have learned enough about physics from university to happen to know that wiki quote must be correct.
You aren't a physics expert while in contrast those wiki quote was edited by physics experts.
Only a moron will take your ignorant word over it over that of the experts and none of us are morons so we all believe those experts are right about this and you are wron ...[text shortened]... ut this. They all say/imply GPS takes relativity equations into account.
You convince nobody here.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Futhermore, some interpretations are wrong.
You prove it.
@humy said"but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is IMpossible."Yes you did.Did what?
Say c is instant?
Or that QE is faster than c?
I clearly said neither.
Or, if neither the above, what, exactly?You said this:That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
So what? How does that wiki ...[text shortened]... I did, says or implies in any way either that c is instant or that QE IS faster than c.
Try again.
Then it is not instantaneous. You already stated that. Why are you arguing to prove yourself wrong?
08 Mar 20
7 edits
@metal-brain saidUseful transmission of information can never be done instantaneous and that is what we and the science has been saying all the long. How is that the same as saying c is infinitely fast? It isn't. Your insistence that it does not only shows you don't understand the first thing about it but shows you cannot handle even the simplest most basic concepts of extremely simple logic let alone of science.
"but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is IMpossible."
Then it is not instantaneous. You already stated that.
Why are you arguing to prove yourself wrong?About what? Only you proved yourself wrong. Neither I nor any of the rest of us here ever claimed c is infinitely fast. So that's only your stupid straw man. I challenge you to show where I/we said/implied c is infinitely fast... -we all know why you won't.
@humy saidThe following is a false statement. The effect is NOT instantaneous. You repeated false information.
Useful transmission of information can never be done instantaneous and that is what we and the science has been saying all the long. How is that the same as saying c is infinitely fast? It isn't. Your insistence that it does not only shows you don't understand the first thing about it but shows you cannot handle even the simplest most basic concepts of extremely simple logic let ...[text shortened]... I challenge you to show where I/we said/implied c is infinitely fast... -we all know why you won't.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Futhermore, some interpretations are wrong.
You are wrong. Stop repeating false info from wikipedia!
08 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidThe effect is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.
The following is a false statement. The effect is NOT instantaneous. You repeated false information.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Fu ...[text shortened]... hermore, some interpretations are wrong.
You are wrong. Stop repeating false info from wikipedia!
08 Mar 20
1 edit
@metal-brain said
The following is a false statement. The effect is NOT instantaneous. You repeated false information.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Fu ...[text shortened]... hermore, some interpretations are wrong.
You are wrong. Stop repeating false info from wikipedia!
The following is a false statement.No, it is correct. That interpretation exists and is one of the commonest one if not the most common one amongst physicists than are much smarter than you or I and know much more about it than you or I. I at least have done just a few university courses in advanced physics and passed with reasonable grades thus know much more about it than you do albeit still a lot less than most physicists. You obviously have no physics credentials as shown by your constant BS claims.
The effect is NOT instantaneous.And that wiki quote doesn't claim it is. It just states an interpretation; it doesn't say that interpretation is the correct one. Apparently you cannot read plain English.
Here it is again;
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
Where do you say the above says/implies QE effects DO actually occur instantly? It is clear to any non-moron that the above says " According to some interpretations ..." and not " According to the correct interpretations ..." and its not claiming any such thing.
08 Mar 20
3 edits
@kazetnagorra saidor at least apparently so.
The effect is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.
There are some interpretations of quantum mechanics that say that apparent instantaneousness is illusionary. Judging from all the comments about this I have seen from other physics experts on this, those interpretations seems to be a less common than the interpretations that imply that instantaneousness is for real i.e. NOT illusionary and there is no reason I am aware of to give those more common interpretations any less credence than those that say its illusionary. I have no personal opinion which is the correct interpretation but, one thing is sure, MB ignorant BS 'theories' on this account for nothing and wouldn't ever be given any credence by anyone and I would only listen to the experts and what the science says.
08 Mar 20
@kazetnagorra saidWhat is your source of information?
The effect is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.
08 Mar 20
@humy said" it doesn't say that interpretation is the correct one."The following is a false statement.No, it is correct. That interpretation exists and is one of the commonest one if not the most common one amongst physicists than are much smarter than you or I and know much more about it than you or I. I at least have done just a few university courses in advanced physics and passed with reasonable grades thus know much more ...[text shortened]... s ..." and not " According to the correct interpretations ..." and its not claiming any such thing.
Nice of you to finally admit it.
08 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidYour question was "Is 100 light years instant?"
So you are arguing something is less instant?
Think about it.
Then you might understand my reply.
09 Mar 20
@wolfgang59 saidI have thought about it. Have you?
Your question was "Is 100 light years instant?"
Think about it.
Then you might understand my reply.
09 Mar 20
6 edits
@metal-brain saidadmit what? I never said/implied that was the correct interpretation, only that it was a currently perfectly credible one and one of the more common ones if not the most common amongst physicists that know a lot more about it than you and I. Your new stupid straw man?
" it doesn't say that interpretation is the correct one."
Nice of you to finally admit it.
-anyway, you have been shown to be wrong yet again.
Everyone here reading your moronic posts sees you as being just plain stupid.