Something about physics (?)

[Atlan0001]

We know this. That's how astronomy works, yes.

The same can be said for you and me when we are standing ten feet apart. I see you 10 nanoseconds in the past.


The term deceleration makes no sense here.

The peculiar motion of the galaxies with respect to each other is independent of the expansion of the universe. The expansion of the universe is only measurable by the averaged motion of objects larger than galaxies.

In other words: on the canvas of the accelerating universe, small, nearby objects such as galaxies are exhibiting their own peculiar motions, some moving away, some moving laterally, some getting closer.

Think about a bunch of ants marching about in random directions on the surface of a balloon, even as the balloon is expanding. The two effects are independent. If you saw one ant walking toward another, you would not say "locally, that ant is decelerating".

Except that you cannot see the ants nor the balloon. You only see the history (the past) and the histories (the pasts). You cannot see the current future (the futures involved) to the concurrency of a singular universe (if not many, many, universes, plural). The speed of light is a relative constant and the observable universe is a matter of many space-time universes observed by us, or by any observer anywhere, in one astronomical picture, not just a single space-time existing but too many to count. The observable universe from anywhere, any locality, any box, is relatively, finitely, simple. The reality is infinitely more boxes, infinitely more complex and chaotic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except that you cannot see the ants nor the balloon.

The ants are galaxies. We can see galaxies.

You only see the history (the past) and the histories (the pasts).

Yes. We get it. That is not the mind-blowing fact you seem to think it is.

You cannot see the current future (the futures involved) to the concurrency of a singular universe

Yes. We cannot see the future. Also not mind-blowing.

(if not many, many, universes, plural).

There is only one universe.

The speed of light is a relative constant

Yes, it is.

and the observable universe is a matter of many space-time universes observed by us,

No. it isn't. It is simply a sphere of everything we can see whose light has reached us.

or by any observer anywhere, in one astronomical picture, not just a single space-time existing but too many to count.

No, just one.

The observable universe from anywhere, any locality, any box, is relatively, finitely, simple. The reality is infinitely more boxes, infinitely more complex and chaotic.

Yes, the universe is bigger than our observable universe. This too is not the mind-blowing fact you make it out to be.

 

[Atlan0001]

There is infinity of minds . . . and universes, and there is reduction to finite narrowness of mind . . . and universe.

--------------------------------------
"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet', by Arthur Canon Doyle.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is infinity of minds . . . and universes, and there is reduction to finite narrowness of mind . . . and universe.

Reported for filling Physics and Math forum with nonsense.

Atlan, please stick to you Free Thoughts threads. Don't pollute the hard science forums with your woo.

 

[Atlan0001]

Having superman vision, some can see galaxies, but I can see only space-time histories of galaxies (only pasts of galaxies).

There is only one Universe (the Planck Universe) in a collapsed cosmological constant of Horizon 13.7 billion light years from anywhere and everywhere within the horizon of the Horizon Universe. There is an infinity of universe horizons . . . an infinity of horizon universes there-in. By the way, the topic is, "Is locality an illusion?" Is it an i-l-l-u-s-i-o-n?! "Illusion" is what we are speaking to in this thread, "Is locality an illusion?"! I'm speaking to both "locality" and "illusion" in the same box picture of universal physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Having superman vision, some can see galaxies, but I can see only space-time histories of galaxies (only pasts of galaxies).

There is only one Universe (the Planck Universe) in a collapsed cosmological constant of Horizon 13.7 billion light years from anywhere and everywhere within the horizon of the Horizon Universe. There is an infinity of universe horizons . . . an infinity of horizon universes there-in. By the way, the topic is, "Is locality an illusion?" Is it an i-l-l-u-s-i-o-n?! "Illusion" is what we are speaking to in this thread, "Is locality an illusion?"! I'm speaking to both "locality" and "illusion" in the same box picture of universal physics.

Reported. Please stay out of the hard science forums if you can't write coherent thoughts.

 

[Atlan0001]

Reported. Please stay out of the hard science forums if you can't write coherent thoughts.

You are telling me that this particular forum is, and always has been, statically for the most narrowminded people in the extreme. I'll accept that.

But in answer to your violently vicious attacks, before I leave this particular forum to your rule and control, I'll leave you with these words from the least hard science, greatest but often considered most incoherent thinker of all time:

"Please don't hold me to things I said before I knew better!" -- Albert Einstein.

"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Albert Einstein.

Additionally which I know for certain you won't comprehend, regarding "Is location an illusion?"

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn, physicist, once of the University of Texas.

It's all yours from here to [apparently] rule, control, and minimize to a mediocre max. Bye.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are telling me that this particular forum is, and always has been, statically for the most narrowminded people in the extreme. I'll accept that.

You agreed to the rules when you signed up here.

Such as:
- stay on topic
- don't hijack threads
- if you want to share free thoughts, post them in the free thoughts forum
- in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.

No one is controlling you; you consented. Do you know what it means to consent? Do you know what it means to be true to your word?

You're not the victim here; you're the perpetrator.

Just don't hijack threads and do post in the correct areas. And if that's too much for you, then this is not the place for you.

 

[Atlan0001]

You agreed to the rules when you signed up here.

Such as:
- stay on topic
- don't hijack threads
- if you want to share free thoughts, post them in the free thoughts forum
- in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.

No one is controlling you; you consented. Do you know what it means to consent? Do you know what it means to be true to your word?

You're not the victim here; you're the perpetrator.

Just don't hijack threads and do post in the correct areas. And if that's too much for you, then this is not the place for you.

I return to answer you:

Whether you comprehend physics or not, my posts were obedient to all of the forum rules you listed.

First of all, the speed of light is not instantaneous across the distances of the universe . . . as you would have it. Thus, there is a future universe with all its physics existing, concurrent with us, we cannot and do not observe. It is to this unobservable [futures] universe all travelers will travel. But the traveler could be observed to travel to and arrive at some destination, a relative traveler behind the times of the real traveler, a destination behind the times of the real destination . . . as I speak to! An observable relative time traveler, NOT the real time traveler. An observable relative time destination, NOT the real time destination (all things in the universe being in motion and the constant of the speed of light being a curving constant, a curvature, relative to all that motion . . . locally constant (+300,000kps) to each motion locally, NOT un-observably non-locally). An observable relative time universe, NOT the real time universe. Two travelers splitting in space and time. Two destinations split in space and time. Two universes split in space and time.

And, oncoming to observers, two travelers (one trekking behind the times of the observer, one trekking times ahead and concurrent with the observer's), one relative time universe, one real time universe, eventually merging to one and the same traveler, one and the same clock, one and the same clock time, at the observer.

Report me again for spewing nonsense physics since you sell an instantaneous speed of light across all distances of the universe, your "single (all there is) universe", as you informed me in no uncertain terms. A universe existing later in space and time than the observable universe (thus producing, at a minimum, two) is no more than realization, no more than ordinary common sense physics. I'm hijacking nothing stating it . . . separating the thread, "Is locality an illusion?" from any nonsense.

 

[Atlan0001]

Concerning the above I'm forgetting to add two more simple physics light-frame streaming has to deal in. Motion of and in the universe. Curvature of and in the universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

First of all, the speed of light is not instantaneous across the distances of the universe

Yeah. We know.

"Distances of the universe" are not what's being discussed here.

... you sell an instantaneous speed of light across all distances of the universe,

Nowhere has anyone suggested the speed of light is instant. You misread.


This thread is about nonlocality, which is being discussed in a quantum mechanical context, not a general relativity or cosmological context. We are talking about the non-locality of entanglement between particles, not the size of the observable universe.

Everything you've posted is off-topic, and based in a misunderstanding of what you thought you read.

Please review the thread to understand the topic being discussed.

 

[Atlan0001]

Yeah. We know.

"Distances of the universe" are not what's being discussed here.


Nowhere has anyone suggested the speed of light is instant. You misread.


This thread is about nonlocality, which is being discussed in a quantum mechanical context, not a general relativity or cosmological context. We are talking about the non-locality of entanglement between particles, not the size of the observable universe.

Everything you've posted is off-topic, and based in a misunderstanding of what you thought you read.

Please review the thread to understand the topic being discussed.

It is you who do not understand either quantum physics or the physics of relativity regarding the illusion of locality. Quantum entanglement of particles in the microcosm and concurrency of object space and time in the macrocosm (both, all, being "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein termed it) are one and the same thing. The slowness of the speed of light across all distance, microcosmic and macrocosmic, without exception will give false microcosmic particle (position / velocity) and macrocosmic object (space / time) readings; will always show a false illusion of locality in both space (position) and time (velocity). The particle (the microcosmic) and the traveler (the macrocosmic) will always be advanced (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... seconds going away showing an acceleration in expansive opening) (....5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, seconds oncoming, showing a deceleration in contractive closing), over the reading, the showing, given by a constant (c) of the speed of light being stretched out or squeezed in. The two microcosmic particles will be one and the same particle. The two macrocosmic travelers will be one and the same traveler. Again, the action of both will be "spooky action at a distance", including speed of light made illusions of locality (again, always false readings of locality both in position / space and spacing, and as to velocity / time and timing).

 

[TheVat]

Cello bog reticule peremptory? Apex effluvium mangrove?

 

[DaveC426913]

Quantum entanglement of particles in the microcosm and concurrency of object space and time in the macrocosm (both, all, being "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein termed it) are one and the same thing.

No they are not.

The slowness of the speed of light across all distance, microcosmic and macrocosmic, without exception will give false microcosmic particle (position / velocity) and macrocosmic object (space / time) readings; will always show a false illusion of locality in both space (position) and time (velocity).

No. We can figure out how much relativity affects our observations, and we account for that. There's nothing "false" about it.

By loose analogy: When a jet flies overhead, the sound we hear trails the visual by an amount related to the speed of sound. If we closed our eyes, we might point at the wrong place, based only on the sound.

But that is not mysterious or false. We know that sound is delayed, and we account for that.

It's similar when we look at an object at a distance. Yes, we know the light we receive from the Moon is several seconds old. Yes, we know that receding objects are red shifted.

It's not the mystery you seem to think it is and we don't really need a lecture on such a basic concept.

The particle (the microcosmic) and the traveler (the macrocosmic) will always be advanced (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... seconds going away showing an acceleration in expansive opening) (....5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, seconds oncoming, showing a deceleration in contractive closing), over the reading, the showing, given by a constant (c) of the speed of light being stretched out or squeezed in. The two microcosmic particles will be one and the same particle. The two macrocosmic travelers will be one and the same traveler. Again, the action of both will be "spooky action at a distance", including speed of light made illusions of locality (again, always false readings of locality both in position / space and spacing, and as to velocity / time and timing).

None of this is true. Go back to your books.


If you want to discuss your ideas, you can. In a new thread, in the correct forum. There is an Alternative Theories forum where you can propose your ideas and defend them.

No one is shutting you down , we just like to have discussions in the right thread in the right forum.

 

[exchemist]

It is you who do not understand either quantum physics or the physics of relativity regarding the illusion of locality. Quantum entanglement of particles in the microcosm and concurrency of object space and time in the macrocosm (both, all, being "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein termed it) are one and the same thing. The slowness of the speed of light across all distance, microcosmic and macrocosmic, without exception will give false microcosmic particle (position / velocity) and macrocosmic object (space / time) readings; will always show a false illusion of locality in both space (position) and time (velocity). The particle (the microcosmic) and the traveler (the macrocosmic) will always be advanced (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... seconds going away showing an acceleration in expansive opening) (....5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, seconds oncoming, showing a deceleration in contractive closing), over the reading, the showing, given by a constant (c) of the speed of light being stretched out or squeezed in. The two microcosmic particles will be one and the same particle. The two macrocosmic travelers will be one and the same traveler. Again, the action of both will be "spooky action at a distance", including speed of light made illusions of locality (again, always false readings of locality both in position / space and spacing, and as to velocity / time and timing).

This paper explains why there is no "spooky action at a distance": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9029371/

 

[Atlan0001]

This paper explains why there is no "spooky action at a distance": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9029371/

Fortunately, for me, the constant of the speed of light is not instantaneous nor infinite, across any distance whatsoever. Thus, there will always be the physical photo-frame barreling FORWARD into the past BEHIND (into history), merging with the universe's pasts (merging with the universes' histories) in addition to physical actions barreling FORWARD into the future ahead (into physical currency and, thus, physical concurrency), NOT merging with pasts (with histories) but being a current and concurrent road, from the photo-frame past-histories into countless microcosmic (quantum physical) / macrocosmic (relative physical) futures (future histories).

The photo-frame particle is not the activity that creates it though it is output energy to the energy event of activity. BUT, it is the second particle of the creating activity, the first particle's one time, and always in following photo-frames' creating activity, the identical twin self . . . the photo-frame self-similarity of the first particle anywhere and everywhere in the microcosmic / macrocosmic universe. It is the observable part of the first particle and, thus, the observable part of the universe. (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... in separations futures and pasts going away) (....5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, incoming; oncoming, in mergers futures and pasts).

 

[Write4U]

This is an incomplete analogy, because it would require the cards to have no face until they are examined.

In superposition?

 

[exchemist]

Fortunately, for me, the constant of the speed of light is not instantaneous nor infinite, across any distance whatsoever. Thus, there will always be the physical photo-frame barreling FORWARD into the past BEHIND (into history), merging with the universe's pasts (merging with the universes' histories) in addition to physical actions barreling FORWARD into the future ahead (into physical currency and, thus, physical concurrency), NOT merging with pasts (with histories) but being a current and concurrent road, from the photo-frame past-histories into countless microcosmic (quantum physical) / macrocosmic (relative physical) futures.

The photo-frame particle is not the activity that creates it though it is output energy to the energy event of activity. BUT, it is the second particle of the creating activity, the first particle's one time, and always in following photo-frames' creating activity, the identical twin self . . . the photo-frame self-similarity of the first particle anywhere and everywhere in the microcosmic / macrocosmic universe. It is the observable part of the first particle and, thus, the observable part of the universe. (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... in separation future and past going away) (....5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, incoming; oncoming, in merger future and past).

Word salad.

 

[TheVat]

Fortunately, for me, the constant of the speed of light is not instantaneous nor infinite, across any distance whatsoever. Thus, there will always be the physical photo-frame barreling FORWARD into the past BEHIND (into history), merging with the universe's pasts (merging with the universes' histories) in addition to physical actions barreling FORWARD into the future ahead (into physical currency and, thus, physical concurrency), NOT merging with pasts (with histories) but being a current and concurrent road, from the photo-frame past-histories into countless microcosmic (quantum physical) / macrocosmic (relative physical) futures.

The photo-frame particle is not the activity that creates it though it is output energy to the energy event of activity. BUT, it is the second particle of the creating activity, the first particle's one time, and always in following photo-frames' creating activity, the identical twin self . . . the photo-frame self-similarity of the first particle anywhere and everywhere in the microcosmic / macrocosmic universe. It is the observable part of the first particle and, thus, the observable part of the universe. (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... in separation future and past going away) (....5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, incoming; oncoming, in merger future and past).

This is why anyone can build an interociter in their basement.

 

[exchemist]

This is why anyone can build an interociter in their basement.

YES! Exeter, “ the man with the Tefal head”, as my little brother used to call him.

There’s a particularly ugly building overlooking the M6 motorway, just north of Birmingham, which houses the headquarters of the RAC, which my father once described as a “monstrosity”, as we were driving past, en famille. This triggered a chorus from us of: “Congratulations! You’ve just built yourself a marnster- arcity - a feat few men could accomplish.” [had to be said in stagey American accent, you understand].

In the family we refer to this landmark as the marnster-arcity to this day.