Leaderboard

Please move to trash. Not worth wasting members time. Thanks.

You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish. The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech. And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society. If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist. When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money. You guys need to give your collective heads a shake !

I don't doubt that for one minute, but you can bet your short n curlies, those that use reasonably, justifiably progressive PC, in a disparaging way, are in reality simply covering up their own short comings and actions in many areas. Not me. I've been trying to point out that misrepresentation and lies happen on both sides of the political divide.

Entanglement does not involve any exchange of information, or any kind of action - it’s simply a statistical correlation between measurement outcomes. So there’s no conflict with the principles of relativity.

under the topic of quantum gravity, she indicates that gravity is responsible for entanglement....and therefore indicates a strong quantum coorelation with it, but does gravity act as the mediator in entanglement? Is this generally accepted? Since gravity is limited in speed to c and entanglement issues seem to surpass that, how could it mediate entanglements?

I’m shocked… Shocked! I tells ya… that someone with a username like “king of trolls” is here simply trolling. I really did NOT see that one coming. I mean… Wow… Mind = Blown

Einstein didn't start with c as a limit that can't be exceeded. He started with c an an invariant. c being a limit is a conclusion that follows later, because the solutions for v>c are imaginary numbers.

If by 'keep on going' you mean do things, like work, then it is energy that keeps it 'going'. Energy has some funny properties. If you have a box divided by a partition, where one side has a more energetic gas than the other side, the partition will be accelerated, and move. That is an example of doing work ( much like the pistons moving in your car's engine let you travel down the road ) When the gas on both sides of the partition has equal energy, obviously the partition will stop moving, and no more work can be done. Notice that the total gas still has energy, but it is the difference in energy that allows work, and processes to happen. So, we have useable energy, which can do work, and un-useable energy which cannot. We call this process, of converting useable energy into un-useable, entropy. Entropy can also be a measure of the 'order' of a system, which means that, although it can be reversed locally ( life is proof of that ), it must always increase globally. That is where the idea for the 'heat death' of the universe comes from. Once entropy of the universe is maximized, and there are no more energy differences, all work and processes will cease, and the universe will essentially be dead. This is a rather simple explanation, which is, hopefully, suitable for your level of understanding. If you should need elaboration, don't be afraid to ask.

Who are you CharonY? We've been sharing pretty intimate dialogs over the years on this forum and it has been very apparent who I am because I GAVE IT ALL UP while you have been pretty much in the shadows. Are you married? do you have kids? What exactly do you do for a living? What are your pronouns?

Lol alright Let me tell you something swansont, before you close the thread for no reason. You are one of the worst thinkers I've encountered. I've seen you're pretty active on this forum, but all your comments are basically condemning threads for arbitrary reasons which justifies you closing them. You rarely, if ever, offer any intelligent or creative thoughts to a discussion. You seem to enjoy wielding your mod power more than having proper scientific discourse. Shameful. Scienceforums.net would be a better place without you, sadly. You have no idea how to moderate, and thus the forum suffers from your incompetence. Thanks for nothing dork I have quoted the necessary passages, and have also written my own definition and explanation of energy rate density as the complexity metric. Multiple times. I was asked for a source. I presented a source. Then I'm told I can't rely on the source for my definitions. What? As far as your above description, that is simply one perspective if the universe. Another scientifically valid perspective is complexification, which is easily observed, has been defined many times and a metric for measuring it given. You even doubted that one of the excerpts was even from the cited article! What the fuck bro, am I lying or something. You could've confirmed it in 2 seconds, but you couldn't even do that much.