swansont

Since it’s not ionizing radiation, the damage would be from heating tissue up (unless someone has found some was there is a resonant interaction at the associated frequency that impacts chemical reactions). The power levels of things like bluetooth and wi-fi are lower than levels that cause damage. There are also regulating bodies in many countries that prevent the sale of “poorly made” devices

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation and don’t appear in other interpretations. So no, it’s not real. It’s a concept to help understand QM, like all elements of these interpretations.

! Moderator Note The recognized common language of science is English, which is used on this site. If you can translate your post, you may open a new thread.

They say impression, not depression. No impact crater, just a crop circle. And nobody’s seen the video they allegedly shot. The impression diameter is about the same size as that van in the lower left, so we have the scale. Several ~10’ tall beings had to fit in there, along with propulsion, life support, etc. The craft crashed, but they were able to take off minutes later, even though the crew were off scaring the locals.

“Newton's first and second laws of mechanics were known and proposed in separate ways by Galileo, Hooke and Huygens before Newton did in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Newton owns the discovery of only the third one” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler's_law No entry for Kepler’s laws, though. But there are a lot of entries overall.

Or who popularized them. It’s not uncommon to find someone else got there first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy

Yes The measurement of time comes at the end of section 2. He starts with definitions. The only equations I see are where he defines velocity and where he gives the time difference for light travel with and against the direction of motion. Do you see another equation in section 2? The whole point of this example is that you don’t get a ”sensible” result! The contemporary physics say the times should be equal, and with a constant c they won’t be. Or you’re just measuring time, which is not surprising, as he talks of clocks not being synchronous. Which means he’s comparing times. You can convert that to a length because d = ct Sure he does. “rAB denotes the length of the moving rod” It immediately follows the time difference equation You’re wrong in claiming that this is a flaw. Einstein says the times will disagree, and you confirmed it. Congratulations! Why not? What is the valid equation? Please derive it

That’s not what he showed in section 2. He showed that the observers would disagree on the time it took for the light to travel the length of the rod and back, and conclude that clocks on the rod ends are not synchronous. I don’t see how your example rebuts this.

carlosfan87 has been banned as a sockpuppet of gamer87 and mariob87

A photon causing an excitation of an atom is destroyed - it no longer exists - so it can’t be entangled.

! Moderator Note …and we’re done here

! Moderator Note We’ve been ready for some time. You keep promising to present your case, and have had ample opportunity to do so, but have squandered this opportunity in favor of delay and distraction. If your next post doesn’t contain the “evidence” you’ve promised, we’re done here.

It’s what we informally call coincidence If it were one reply per minute, the primes don’t matter - that’s an issue of when you sampled. But only two data points - that’s not statistically significant. And only noticing because they match and are prime can be confirmation bias. Or it’s aliens.

If you know their spins, they aren’t entangled. Yes, interaction without entanglement is possible.

Something emitting green light, falling, was caught on the body cam. Nothing else was. It was, indeed, unidentified. All those other people, and not a smartphone among them.

You would have to have an interaction where you no longer knew the individual spins for them to be entangled.

! Moderator Note Simple solution: don’t cite it, or any other unreliable source. It distracts from the conversation.

! Moderator Note Chat GPT is known to give inaccurate information. It gives plausible-sounding results, not accurate results. It should never be used in this fashion. It is not a credible source.

! Moderator Note If your questions are about DNA, this should not impact the discussion at all. As in, it should not be brought up, by anyone.

If you know A has spin up, or B has spin down, then the particles are not entangled. Entanglement could only occur if you don’t know the individual spins, but know the total spin of the pair (zero, in this case) Interaction strength tends to drop off with distance. It’s how it works.

It’s fictional because that’s not how entanglement works. B isn’t in an eigenstate, it’s in a superposition, so there is no change from one eigenstate to another, and since it wasn’t in an eigenstate, measuring the state doesn’t transmit any signal. You have to tell the other end via normal communication.

The device you describe is fiction. Entanglement does not detect a change of state of a particle. The particle is in an undetermined state. When it’s measured, you can then send that information to the other detector to compare. That signal is limited to traveling at c.

He refers to it as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. Not measurement. If it’s constant, though, one can measure that. But the law is the invariance, not the measurement. The latter is just you making stuff up. Who claims it’s been “proved 100%”? Are you making this up, too? It’s not “Einstein believing” The invariance of c is rooted in electrodynamics and pops out of Maxwell’s equations. But it’s not “Maxwell-believing” (or Heaviside, or Faraday, or Lorentz, etc.). The “belief” is in the science - because it agrees with experiment - not the name attached to it. The stuff you’re making up, in order to discredit it. “measurement is not law” Nobody claimed it is. The participants here (other than you, possibly) can follow the math. We/they know it works. And I think everyone is tired of your tap-dancing about what you say you can show. Show it, already. You’re right. You haven’t presented any science to do this. Until you do, we can’t show your analysis to be wrong. (though you’ve been wrong about a number of things, which have been pointed out to you. Not that you’ve acknowledged this)

I did? Can you quote where I said this? It’s based on a real name, so no, it’s not spelled wrong, but that’s not really important. What is important is that it runs afoul of our rules on civility (no insults) and I’m asking you to stop.

Can you point to any discussion where it was asserted the measurements are laws? Otherwise this is a straw man argument.