What if (on What next)

What if our thoughts(thought experiments) on QM have come to us now by
great experiments? like individual beryllium ions have been show in two
places at once. I find it so very interesting that quantum effects are
not just confined in the subatomic level,but under the right conditions
they can be observed in macroscopic objects Feynman sill had quantum
effects weird and he was so right. Lets go with that experiment that
shows a single electron can go in both directions simultaneously Hmmmm
I will add this weird effect was seen by the human eye. Kind of fits
with Schodinger cat. This is the stuff that excites my brain go
figure TreBert

On Jan 30, 2:43*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
What if our thoughts(thought experiments) on QM have come to us now by
great experiments? like individual beryllium ions have been show in two
places at once. *I find it so very interesting that quantum effects are
not just confined in the subatomic level,but under the right conditions
they can be observed in macroscopic objects * Feynman sill had quantum
effects weird and he was so right. *Lets go with that experiment that
shows a single electron can go in both directions simultaneously *Hmmmm
I will add this weird effect was seen by the human eye. *Kind of fits
with Schodinger cat. * This is the stuff that excites my brain * go
figure *TreBert

There's no brain excitement allowed in Usenet/newsgroups. I'd thought
you already knew at least that much. Outside of box thinking isn't
allowed either, unless you're Jewish, because apparently the laws of
physics work entirely different for our moon and the planet Venus.

~ BG

BG Even in my twin Treb universe the laws of physics are the same. go
figure TreBert

On Jan 30, 3:09*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
BG Even in my twin Treb universe the laws of physics are the same. go
figure *TreBert

Be my guess, and tell that to our DARPA, NASA and the other 99.9% of
Usenet/newsgroups, because I 100% agree with you.

~ BG

LIAR BEERTbrain's out of the box thinking comes from one source:
BEER!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:58:14 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

There's no brain excitement allowed in Usenet/newsgroups. I'd thought
you already knew at least that much. Outside of box thinking isn't
allowed either, unless you're Jewish, because apparently the laws of
physics work entirely different for our moon and the planet Venus.

~ BG

On Jan 30, 2:43*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
What if our thoughts(thought experiments) on QM have come to us now by
great experiments? like individual beryllium ions have been show in two
places at once. *I find it so very interesting that quantum effects are
not just confined in the subatomic level,but under the right conditions
they can be observed in macroscopic objects * Feynman sill had quantum
effects weird and he was so right. *Lets go with that experiment that
shows a single electron can go in both directions simultaneously *Hmmmm
I will add this weird effect was seen by the human eye. *Kind of fits
with Schodinger cat. * This is the stuff that excites my brain * go
figure *TreBert

How did alt.astronomy get itself so chuck full of science fiction and
God crapolla topics, plus otherwise of silly kinds of worthless topics
and of such a gauntlet of mainstream infowar disinformation?

Why is alt.astronomy as a whole so deathly afraid of the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?

Even the most open mindset of the bunch are either soooo afraid of big
brother, or in denial of their being in denial. Be it atoms in two
places at once, or quantum teleportation, there's nothing like sharing
the best available truths if you really care about the near future of
humanity and that of salvaging our frail environment.

~ BG

In article
, Painius
wrote:

Oc is always saying that the main thing needed in order
to understand gravity and all the puzzles that can't be
explained by GR is to reject the void-space paradigm
and accept that space is made of energy, a special kind
of energy. Well, maybe that goes for quantum physics,
too. Maybe a lot of the puzzle pieces would begin to
fall into place easily if physicists, both the relativists
AND the quantumists, would begin to envision the true
nature of the spatial/gravitational energy dynamic.

May I assume that I have been assigned a seat in the "void-spacer
paradigm" box?

On Feb 1, 2:30*am, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



. . . *there's nothing like sharing
the best available truths if you really care about the near future of
humanity and that of salvaging our frail environment.

*~ BG

Brad? *Why do *you* care?

What do *you* care about the future of humanity
and the suffering and frail environment?

Unlike yourself and others of your pretend Atheism kind, that clearly
do not care about about such pesky matters of truthful science and of
sharing 100% of the best available science, as is almost entirely
public funded, whereas I merely care enough to openly share and share
alike.

Unlike your mainstream status quo of cover thy butt and otherwise
policy of imposing as much nondisclosure or need to know as you can
muster, whereas the selective excluding and/or banishment of evidence
has not been one of my policies.

~ BG

On Feb 1, 2:22*am, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...

in ...



What if our thoughts(thought experiments) on QM have come to us now by
great experiments? like individual beryllium ions have been show in two
places at once. *I find it so very interesting that quantum effects are
not just confined in the subatomic level,but under the right conditions
they can be observed in macroscopic objects * Feynman sill had quantum
effects weird and he was so right. *Lets go with that experiment that
shows a single electron can go in both directions simultaneously *Hmmmm
I will add this weird effect was seen by the human eye. *Kind of fits
with Schodinger cat. * This is the stuff that excites my brain * go
figure *TreBert

Bert, QM is like a bunch of Eddingtons with no Einstein.

Suppose Sir Arthur Eddington had gone to Africa to study
the Solar eclipse but WITHOUT the relativity theory or
even the Newtonian math. *He would have noted on his
"map" that a certain star was not where it was supposed
to be! *He would have plotted the observed location and
would have found that it was not in the proper place that
it was expected to be in! *How can this be? *How can a
star be in two places at the same time time?

Fortunately for Eddington, Einstein had already explained
how and why the star would be observed in a different
place than it would be if the Sun's gravitational field were
not there to bend the light from the star. *Unfortunately
for QM, there has been no Einstein to furnish the concept
necessary for us to understand how and why things can
show up in two places at one time in the micro-world.

If i were to hazard a guess, my first would be that the
equipment being used to sense the location(s) is faulty
and yielding impossible data. *My second guess would be
that some kind of flow lensing, or perhaps "flow bending"
is taking place on a micro-scale that makes objects only
*appear* to be in two places at one time. *The spatial/
gravitational energy can lense and bend light here in our
macro-world, so it can probably lense and bend light in
the quantum micro-world, too.

Oc is always saying that the main thing needed in order
to understand gravity and all the puzzles that can't be
explained by GR is to reject the void-space paradigm
and accept that space is made of energy, a special kind
of energy. *Well, maybe that goes for quantum physics,
too. *Maybe a lot of the puzzle pieces would begin to
fall into place easily if physicists, both the relativists
AND the quantumists, would begin to envision the true
nature of the spatial/gravitational energy dynamic.

Space is loaded with photons, and photons represent mass as well as
energy.

~ BG

On Feb 2, 2:59*am, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



On Feb 1, 2:30 am, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
....

. . . there's nothing like sharing
the best available truths if you really care about the near future of
humanity and that of salvaging our frail environment.

Brad? Why do *you* care?

What do *you* care about the future of humanity
and the suffering and frail environment?

Unlike yourself and others of your pretend Atheism kind, that clearly
do not care about about such pesky matters of truthful science and of
sharing 100% of the best available science, as is almost entirely
public funded, whereas I merely care enough to openly share and share
alike.

Unlike your mainstream status quo of cover thy butt and otherwise
policy of imposing as much nondisclosure or need to know as you can
muster, whereas the selective excluding and/or banishment of evidence
has not been one of my policies.

*~ BG

You've been trying to censor me and others in another
thread. *So what gives you the right to impose as much
nondisclosure or need to know as you can muster here
on UseNet? *You seem to be as bad as the people you
are always accusing of this. *If it's wrong for them to
do it, then it's wrong for you to do it, too.

I do the best I can, including my fair share of mistakes, and not that
I haven't already posted cites to multiple research by others that in
my interpretation supports my arguments.

btw. loaded questions do not count.


And the funny thing is... anyone who tries to censor
*you*, even if they are just trying to stop you from all
that censoring that you try to do, is also guilty of that
terrible thing, "censorship". *Anyway, it's an argument,
an interesting puzzle, that i got into back during those
bloody, body-parts-all-over-the-place censorship wars
many years ago here on UseNet.

So what do *you* think? *Is it "censorship" to censor
somebody who is trying to censor you? *g

If you don't lift a finger when others are getting summarily topic/
author stalked, bashed and/or banished for no geed reason, then you
become one of them.

That's exactly what Hitler and Bush counted on, as having an unlimited
supply of wussy minions of the brown-nosed kind. Now look at the
nearly insurmountable mess we're in.

~ BG