I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that I am stirring, throwing ideas out there and seeing whether they stick on the wall is one way to learn. I try very hard not to indulge in trollish behavior, there is such a thing as a good form of stirring. I don't know anything for sure but throwing ideas out there is one way of learning new ones.

A quote from mark twain:
it ain't what folks knows that gets them in trouble, it's what they know that is not true.

 

I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that I am stirring, throwing ideas out there and seeing whether they stick on the wall is one way to learn. I try very hard not to indulge in trollish behavior, there is such a thing as a good form of stirring. I don't know anything for sure but throwing ideas out there is one way of learning new ones.

A quote from mark twain:
it ain't what folks knows that gets them in trouble, it's what they know that is not true.

The problem with that is IMO this is the wrong topic (General Science, Physics & Math) for that. There should be IMO some sort of scientific foundation to that stirring or it degenerates quickly to trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
"The Sagan standard is a neologism abbreviating the aphorism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE)"

This is central to the scientific method, critical thinking, rational thought, and skepticism everywhere.

 

Only if it is done with illicit intent, which is not the case here. This is a discussion pure and simple. If I am wrong about some of my assumptions, then I learned something.

 

Only if it is done with illicit intent, which is not the case here. This is a discussion pure and simple. If I am wrong about some of my assumptions, then I learned something.

IMO and that of the vast majority of the scientific community that explorers, investigates and experiments with QM ,its been settled here, several times, over and over ad nauseam.

 

So the original question remains open, can quantum entanglement be used for communications? And if so how fast is it? Both being open-ended questions that have not been answered as far as I could tell.

 

So the original question remains open, can quantum entanglement be used for communications? And if so how fast is it? Both being open-ended questions that have not been answered as far as I could tell.

Nicely and slowly, yes, they have, the answer is NO, NO, NO over and over ad nauseam.

 

I would like to give two likes, but the like button goes through an xor gate.

 

Nicely and slowly, yes, they have, the answer is NO, NO, NO over and over ad nauseam.

You can lead an iconoclast to facts, but you can't make him accept those facts.

 

Right or wrong, I don't feel that the science has been done yet. To me it is still an open question. Does my personal biases influence this, maybe.

 

Right or wrong, I don't feel that the science has been done yet. To me it is still an open question. Does my personal biases influence this, maybe.

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, but you are not necessarily entitled to your own facts.

 

All I am saying is I don't believe the facts are all in yet. Never claimed to be right.

 

All I am saying is I don't believe the facts are all in yet. Never claimed to be right.

I don't think that is a supportable position, but you're entitled to it. It does affect my opinion of your credibility on a whole range of other things.

 

Really asking questions? Are you trying to make this personal?

 

Really asking questions? Are you trying to make this personal?

I'm personally tired of 'make this personal' responses when providing a scientifically based answer to a science based question if the person doesn't like the science based answer.

No, it's not personal and IMO this is the reason opinion based stirring on science turns to trolling eventually.

 

I don't think that is a supportable position, but you're entitled to it. It does affect my opinion of your credibility on a whole range of other things.

Telling me it influences is the decision and how he sees me on other things because we disagree is making it personal. Adults can disagree without mentioning how their opinion is lowered by the of the other person by the disagreement. I freely admit I am brain damaged, and I try to work through this by stretching my brain with new concepts. Just as in global warming, there was major disagreement mostly upon political lines. This is a prime example how internal biases can disregard science. And I said before they are still doing experiments on the subject, so science has not directly answered the question completely. I do see a lot of other biases here, when someone says they have all the facts and science has declared something to be so, when it hasn't there have been many cases over the centuries where science got it wrong and had to be rewritten with new data. To quote a commercial I see way too often show me the facts.

 

There are no QM FTL communications experiments, it can’t be used to signal from one to the other period. QM is being investigated was a cryptographic security method for possible QM networks that use plain-Jane photons or atoms for key distribution compromise detection.

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...r-than-the-speed-of-light.186645/post-1729710
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...r-than-the-speed-of-light.186645/post-1729729

This thread, that was based on a initial misunderstanding, from a misleading article, has run the course.

 

Telling me it influences is the decision and how he sees me on other things because we disagree is making it personal. Adults can disagree without mentioning how their opinion is lowered by the of the other person by the disagreement. I freely admit I am brain damaged, and I try to work through this by stretching my brain with new concepts. Just as in global warming, there was major disagreement mostly upon political lines. This is a prime example how internal biases can disregard science. And I said before they are still doing experiments on the subject, so science has not directly answered the question completely. I do see a lot of other biases here, when someone says they have all the facts and science has declared something to be so, when it hasn't there have been many cases over the centuries where science got it wrong and had to be rewritten with new data. To quote a commercial I see way too often show me the facts.

There is nothing in and of itself wrong with keeping an open mind. It shows that you want to know the truth of the matter, whatever that may be. When it comes to critical thinking however (eg. problem solving), that kind of mindset can be a severe detriment. It can also make a person more susceptible to scams and other con-artistry. The "threshold of belief" is somewhat low, so such an individual may more easily accept something which is patently false. I like to think that there is a balance there somewhere. Give all arguments a "fair shake" but then temper that with a healthy amount of skepticism.

How is the hospice visit is going by the way? Feeling any better?

 

Telling me it influences is the decision and how he sees me on other things because we disagree is making it personal. Adults can disagree without mentioning how their opinion is lowered by the of the other person by the disagreement. I freely admit I am brain damaged, and I try to work through this by stretching my brain with new concepts. Just as in global warming, there was major disagreement mostly upon political lines. This is a prime example how internal biases can disregard science. And I said before they are still doing experiments on the subject, so science has not directly answered the question completely. I do see a lot of other biases here, when someone says they have all the facts and science has declared something to be so, when it hasn't there have been many cases over the centuries where science got it wrong and had to be rewritten with new data. To quote a commercial I see way too often show me the facts.

Credibility is not something granted by default. Like respect it is earned. It is not personal, it's just business.

 

Credibility is not something granted by default. Like respect it is earned. It is not personal, it's just business.

While I agree with you, I see her point. I generally put my faith in those with greater experience and lifelong formal education yet often times on sites like these I will witness folks arguing what is already known to me as fact.

Hence I base a lot of my facts on, which are in reality, second hand knowledge. A very sharp double edged sword indeed.

The line between fact and conjecture seems to become more obscured as a person gathers more facts and improves their fact finding ability because they have gathered a wide variety of second hand knowledge instead of carrying out experiment and calculation themselves. So I must ask, how many here have really done this work?

So it becomes that many folks on this site for example don't feel the need to include references and sources where I largely discard their opinions without.

Let's not forget about half the planet believes in "God" which is the pinnacle of assumption and yet many of those people are well educated in other areas so I seriously doubt their ability to view the world objectively across all subjects. Many folks seem to say 'good enough for me' regarding one fact and breeze onto the next.

This whole credibility business is a dangerous one if you ask me. Especially for the omniologist and philosopher.

 

There are tons of experiments operating this second that log data transmission times, cosmic ray particle events, etc... that could show signs of FTL communications or speeds. Any that show a discrepancy that can't be eliminated by trivial means are investigated deeply to find the source.

"There's nothing more dangerous than a loose wire"
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/ftl-neutrinos.59683/post-458879

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

https://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html
Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit

"If this result at CERN is proved to be right, and particles are found to travel faster than the speed of light, then I am prepared to eat my shorts, live on TV," Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of theoretical physics at Britain's University of Surrey, declared at the time.

https://jimal-khalili.com/blog/Faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

That's pretty damn sure.