Mod thinks this has to do with relativity and entanglement — Split from Pushing Gravity

[kristalris]

I think you'll find that vibrations are also limited to the speed of light. If you had a solid rod in Houston and the other end on the ISS, and Houston smacked their end with a hammer (i.e. made lots of vibrations), the ISS would not register them any faster than the speed of light, and actually significantly slower than c.

 

The observation of entanglement is only easily explainable via one or more hidden variables. Defining the observed slowing of an atom clock when speeding it up as proving the slowing of time is incorrect. If it is only the slowing of the clock then speeds in excess of c for the observed need for such variables outside the SM and thus GR & QM must be assumed possible, as a most probable to be investigated possibility.

 

'None' is an awfully strong word used here. You have to admit that it gets tiresome 'encouraging' people when they refuse to listen to any kind of reason or known verified results.

 

As I wrote in the thread on why speculations are so popular -- science needs new ideas. Craves them. Hungers for them.

 

But to do science requires that you follow scientific rules. And when someone's new idea conflicts with data that is already known, that means the idea is flawed. But so, so, so often people don't want to hear that.

 

And what does science already know then? That c is max? That time slows down? Incorrect definitions. Science doesn't know that. Yes for the SM c = max, indeed.

 

The SM is filled with former hidden variables i.e. former unicorns. You as does a lot of science ignore the worth of a simple explanation in verbal logic addressing all relevant questions and giving a plausible explanation to all observations in a testable and thus falsifiable way. That is irrational.

 

A relatively recent example:

 

Person A doesn't believe in quarks and proposes something different. I say, "that's fine, but use your model to re-create the classic Briedenbach 3-point-like body experiment wherein quarks were first experimentally verified"... and nothing. Again, science craves new ideas! We know for sure our current models are at least incomplete, if not dead wrong! But, unless you can come up with awfully convincing reasons that Briendenbach's and all the subsequent quark-verifying experiments were falsisifed or wrong.... that data is out there. So the proposed different-than-quarks model has to be able to recreate the known data the quark model creates today.

 

Observations are observations if done honestly and correctly. The question could be if what was observed on quarks has been systematically correctly been classified. So if someone provides a new systematic way to classify the SM only falling short in explaining quarks that is close enough to warrant further investigation. If the police would go about investigating suspects as scientists do they would be very slow in catching the culprits.

 

Really, I think the best example of this is general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. GR is an improvement over Newtonian mechanics, but it doesn't just destroy Newtonian mechanics. In fact, in the right limits, the predictions GR makes are identical to Newtonian mechanics. GR, as the improvement, predicted everything Newtonian mechanics predicts and then some. If someday a better GR is created -- call it super general relativity (SGR) -- then it too will have to continue to make the same really quite good predictions GR makes. See, for example, this paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

 

Agree

 

So, to wrap this up... it gets hard to continue to 'encourage' people when they refuse to accept the above. It gets hard to 'encourage' people when their idea is not immediately awarded a Nobel prize. It gets hard to 'encourage' people when flaws are pointed out and they snap back that you must be part of the religious-scientific-military-industrial-unicorn cult. It is hard to 'encourage' when upon having a flaw pointed out, they just throw some more scientific sounding buzzwords into a nonsensical phrase and act like that solves everything.

 

In part I agree. Yet in part not. It is not about encouraging people, but about application of incorrect norms. The norm of perfection is an incorrect norm for the furtherance of scientific knowledge. Trial and error is. If an idea whether it be in verbal logic or mathematics if it plausibly solves the stated problems, it warrants further investigation, if presented in a falsifiable way via a test.

 

When the speculators don't fell like any kind of rules apply to them, 'encouragement' will easy fall through the cracks.

 

In the end, science is actually quite, quite easy: the model that makes the most accurate predictions win. End of story. If you don't like the current model, show how your model makes more and better predictions than the current one. Done. 'Encouragement' really has nothing to do with that at all... except to encourage speculators to actually make predictions and show how they are better than the current model predictions.

 

I can honestly say, I have never seen a single thread get to that point in this section. Never.

 

Indeed for you apply the wrong and thus much to high a norm before starting to support testing. That is anti scientific even.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

So, I guess really, regarding this thread then:

 

Popcorn Sutton. Demonstrate that your pushing model of gravity makes better predictions than the current attraction model. If you can do that, then you may have something. If you can't, then your idea is story telling, fiction, and a forum favorite non sequitur: word salad.

On a concept level verbal logic or word salad if you like is the correct scientific (albeit not mainstream accepted scientific) way to address problems with inherent as yet to few data to quickly encompass the entirety of the problem. Mathematics can't work that as quickly whereby close is close enough. You can't substitute this by being extremely accurate in predictions on part issues.That is a fallacy in reasoning. A prediction that the apple will fall upwards from the tree in certain testable circumstances, then that is a proper scientific prediction. You don't then have to give a formula or state how fast it will do so. If it is observed to fall upwards in a test, it suffices for a testable concept, and when shown to indeed fall upwards under such circumstances it constitutes a proven concept, warranting further investigation. Then you can start to investigate further. Or putting the mathematics to such a concept can also be seen as a test of logic. (The upwards falling apple is a metaphor for a prediction that contradiction of current science. Such as the law of Hubble was, or entanglement or DM before it all was observed.)

 

Posing that science says it's pull excluding push as proven wrong based on only addressing part of the relevant problems is a fallacy. You can't then state anything other than that the concept of pull works brilliantly within certain limits. Yet that proves nothing on the larger issue. And that is the issue posed by the OP.

 

 

 

This is not personal, nor do I think it is unencouraging to arrive at that conclusion. Every single scientist has made mistakes. The good scientist goes back and revises until their model is better than any other one out there. Or concedes that their model isn't better than the current one. Again, no shame in that. If your model doesn't make better predictions, then it doesn't make better predictions. That's all there is to it.

Edited April 16, 2013 by kristalris

[kristalris]

Where did perfection come from? I didn't say perfection. I said a model that proposes to supercede another one has to make more and better predictions than the one it wants to supercede. That doesn't equal perfection.

Well near perfection then, if you ask an alternate on a broad issue to do better on a part issue that inherently isn't as broad. The degree of accuracy you require is the most accurate that we humans have ever achieved in anything (i.e. QM etc. at the moment it can't get more perfect than that) and you demand that I supercede that before wanting to start testing. That is irrational. The fact that I can logically crawl my way towards a goal of TOE (being in fact the issue of the OP as stated earlier) on a field not my own, makes the demand that I must flawlessly run the issue (i.e. showing the mathematics before we start jumping the canyon towards more relevant data (i.e. testing) is irrational because illogical and thus un-scientific.) This because current science isn't even crawling in the right direction of TOE. It's actually running towards nothing (i.e. Krauss et all's something from nothing.) This in blowing up the SM leaving as you can predict nothing, working like that.

 

This clearly based on incorrect definitions (like I've already shown in this thread as well) and posing position on a broad issue (i.e. stating that it is proven not to be push but pull) by only looking at part of the evidence and not addressing all the relevant questions.

 

Science is ultimately conservative, because it doesn't support anything that doesn't have evidence.

You forget that I use all available evidence but logically reorganize the pieces of the puzzle in a way that is logically plausible. Not only to me but to anyone. If you care to contest show where what I say is illogical or show what relevant problem I haven't addressed. This thread proves that several missed the point that what I say isn't in any way contradictory to Newtons third law, and that the notion of little black holes solves the other end of the problem as well. Not only that but it also shows why it then subsequently is that all galaxies must accelerate solving DE, in my stride. This doesn't prove MN (who is undeniably a mass murderer on the loos) to be the culprit I think she is i.e. an illusionist, which you oddly enough seem to demand before being willing to support testing, but it does prove this to be the prime suspect. I can do that by crawling in the right direction which is again more than current science has been doing. So contrary to what you are stating this IS evidence based. Because it is the ONLY way to organize all the evidence in a way actually explaining it all in a logically plausible way not just for me but objectively to anyone in a most simple way (nice on Occam).

 

E.g. you talk about faster than c speeds. Ok, demonstrate it. It hasn't been demonstrated before. Same thing with your ideas about quarks, and all that other stuff. Demonstrate it. I'm certainly not just taking your word on it, no matter how logical it seems to you. At one point in the history of mankind it was logical that the Earth was flat and the moon was made of cheese. Logic alone is insufficient.

If mankind in that time had worked the correct scientific procedure they would of solved the flat earth problem much sooner. Yet that system of correct procedure had to be further devised as well. Now we have it and you don't adhere to it. Current sciences flat half backed expanding flat space cake with raisins (our galaxy being one of the raisins) is like the notion of the flat earth. Clearly wrong WHEN you look at ALL the evidence and systematically (= scientifically) reorganize that in a way that plausibly answers all questions (= the ONLY correct systematic and thus scientific way to do so). The tool mathematics dictate you use for that is verbal logic. First you crawl then you try to walk and accept falling and then you try to run in order to jump. If you see a possibility to jump quickly and dirty sooner then there is not only no reason not to but a lot of reasons to do so. So jump after crawling in the right direction is compulsory in science on key issues like this OP if possible. Do you deny that it is possible to test this? You can't it's undeniable.

 

We observe to much order in the system if we look at a part of the problem. Well you can immediately test that in a computer simulation. If it goes to order that in the eyes of current science would be like the apples falling upwards. If it goes to order of a crystal then my prediction is correct. If it goes to any other form of order, say the order of a fractal or what not, then still I'm correct that we readily observe to much order in the system and that must have a testable reason. On this limited point alone it is incomprehensible (apart from it being a whopping (= irrational) confirmation bias at work) that no testing is done along these lines. That test would solve the question of the OP in one go if it succeeds. Why predict a dynamic crystal before a fractal? Simple: a crystal corresponds with waves then solving that as well. And it being dynamic solves the problem of not observing interference of crossing light beams. (It could also be God or gremlins or the nothing of Krauss et all making the order but that is all extremely improbable. So much so that on any reasonable norm it's falsified. So is the idea that ignoring it is best. There is no evidence for that notion and an awful lot of evidence against that notion, that ignoring issues is best. Mainstream science has never solved out of the box problems, ever. After the individual taking the risk has been successful it claims the victory. This after that the risk taker creative thinker has finally brought it to the test faze, by complying to irrelevant demands and opposition of the then mainstream science. See Higgs as point in case.

 

So I although I don't need the broadness of logical probable explanation, I can provide it. Even magnetism is easily explained at this level. Making it all the more probable (contrary to any other idea, concept or theory, there is NONE other that does this) Again I don't need to: the current science accepted observation of too much order in the system forces your hand in science to test the issue by simulating moving balls in a box (with virtual infinitely thick walls). If it goes to order it proves the concept of order and thus provides very compelling evidence for the OP's push idea.

 

In science you don't argue these issues like you are doing, but you test them.

 

 

Again faster than c is obviously needed to explain the observed entanglement problem that science can't explain. Your dogma that c = max stems from an indisputable incorrect notion that speeds > c would cause us to travel back in time. Not seeing that it is not time slowing down but the atom clock. Further more not seeing that GR etc. are to be defined as the best laws of physics we ever had readily shows that if you had done that correctly that laws have limits. You not only can but MUST assume this by law of logic. AND again you don't argue this you test it if you can. And you can, so what is stopping support then?

 

(The issue on quarks is a side issue. I have no position on them other than that there is a worked out concept in this forum that would nicely marry my idea to the SM except quarks. The only thing I'm saying is that close is close enough in order to punt more effort into that other concept. Qualms with quarks is insufficient for denying that.)

 

And to give you a formula on spin I used it's oExp/s.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Again faster than c is obviously needed to explain the observed entanglement problem that science can't explain.

 

Entanglement is not transfer of data with speed faster than light...

 

If you split newly born child from parents, child is still their, even on 2nd side of world, still have their genes.

[kristalris]

Entanglement is not transfer of data with speed faster than light...

 

If you split newly born child from parents, child is still their, even on 2nd side of world, still have their genes.

Well this Wikipedia page talks of instantaneous with recent experiments showing speeds at least 10000 times faster than light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

I don't believe in instantaneous as a probable answer, speeds > c are extremely more probable. BTW this Wikipedia page is evidence based. Right up my ally.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If you have one apple, and split it to half, or triple, newly made pieces will match with others, merged creating initial one apple.

 

So the same with entanglement.

If you have two gamma photons that collided, and you measure newly made particle, and find out it's electron, you know already the second one that you didn't measure yet, is matching to this one, and is positron. Otherwise electric charge conservation would be broken. But it must sum up to 0 - initial charge of gamma photons. So the same with the rest.

[kristalris]

If you have one apple, and split it to half, or triple, newly made pieces will match with others, merged creating initial one apple.

 

So the same with entanglement.

If you have two gamma photons that collided, and you measure newly made particle, and find out it's electron, you know already the second one that you didn't measure yet, is matching to this one, and is positron. Otherwise electric charge conservation would be broken. But it must sum up to 0 - initial charge of gamma photons. So the same with the rest.

Well, you don't agree with the Wikipedia page then. And I don't think the principle is that simple as you suggest. From the earlier link I gave:

quote

 

The question becomes, "How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?"^[29] The latter question involves the issue of locality, i.e., whether for a change to occur in something the agent of change has to be in physical contact (at least via some intermediary such as a field force) with the thing that changes.

end quote

[swansont]

Well this Wikipedia page talks of instantaneous with recent experiments showing speeds at least 10000 times faster than light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

Technically the experiment shows that the separation distance is 10,000 larger than ct. There is no speed, per se, from taking the distance and dividing by the time, unless one assumes that spooky action is actually happening. And that's all it is — under the assumption that spooky action is occurring, it is occurring at >10,000c. This is not being offered of evidence of superluminal communication of any kind.

 

I don't believe in instantaneous as a probable answer, speeds > c are extremely more probable. BTW this Wikipedia page is evidence based. Right up my ally.

 

Instantaneous would be a speed that exceeds c.

[kristalris]

If you have one apple, and split it to half, or triple, newly made pieces will match with others, merged creating initial one apple.

 

So the same with entanglement.

If you have two gamma photons that collided, and you measure newly made particle, and find out it's electron, you know already the second one that you didn't measure yet, is matching to this one, and is positron. Otherwise electric charge conservation would be broken. But it must sum up to 0 - initial charge of gamma photons. So the same with the rest.

Rethinking this you might actually be right. Seeing it as a split apple say we split as Wikipedia states even a diamond then the separate pieces are entangled so I'm led to believe. No matter how far apart then.

 

Now what does that mean? Say one part x is in measured state A and the other part y is in opposite state B in time t1. If these states are repetitive in time t2 part x could be in measured state B and thus part y in state A. Indeed then no interaction needed. Seen in that way entanglement doesn't exist. It should then be defined as counter symmetric parting. (I.e. AB; BA; AB; BA; AB; BA....... etc.)