Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[scruffy]

Wall of bullshit ... all to avoid answering questions ... where's your Ising rock, or are you lying? ...

You don't know the difference between rocks and metal ... stupid ... maybe you should give up? ...

Post # 197, lazyboi.

Maybe you should read before making a fool of yourself.

 

[scruffy]

Back to topic - consider:

Let's say we have an entangled pair, one member of which remains with the generator, while the other member travels "out there" somewhere.

The obvious part is, this pair is both sensory and motor, relative to the generator.

It is sensory, because anything that happens to the traveling member, will be immediately reflected in the static member. By virtue of entanglement.

It is motor, because anything that happens to the static member, will be immediately reflected in the traveling member. By virtue of entanglement.

Therefore, any entangled pair is also a sensorimotor pair. And, by definition, the entanglement stays in place "long enough" to preserve the reference frame.

 

[ReinyDays]

Post # 197, lazyboi.

Maybe you should read before making a fool of yourself.

Post # 190 ... are you discussing rocks or iron? ... you made a switch in your discourse there ... why? ...

 

[scruffy]

Post # 190 ... are you discussing rocks or iron? ... you made a switch in your discourse there ... why? ...

Sigh.

We are discussing ATOMS. And magnetic spin.

EVERY atom in every rock everywhere, regardless of composition, has magnetic spin.

Even neutrons, which are electrically neutral, have magnetic spin. (Why?)

Every rock everywhere, is an Ising rock.

The degree of Ising-ness depends on the magnetic behavior of the SYSTEM (ie its Hamiltonian, or Lagrangian if you prefer).

EVERY atom with magnetic spin (which is every rock everywhere) is capable of generating entangled pairs. All that's necessary, is for a stray neutrino to hit the rock.

Hopefully you'll start to understand now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Post # 190 ... are you discussing rocks or iron? ... you made a switch in your discourse there ... why? ...

He has pretty consistently spoken of a magnetic rock.

 

[scruffy]

Here - for your education and enjoyment.

https://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/chap-3/chap-3.htm

Note in particular the section on Boltzmann statistics, which is what we're talking about.

 

[scruffy]

He has pretty consistently spoken of a magnetic rock.

Magnetic rocks are convenient because the spins are aligned. They provide a reliable macroscopic metric.

The "amount of alignment" is what changes when we put the rock in an external magnetic field.

Sometimes, the amount changes so much that the combined spin changes phase, it becomes a spin glass or even a spin liquid.

In many non- magnetic materials, there is still plenty of magnetic spin, however the directions are not aligned and sometimes cancel each other out. An example is electron pairing, which you can even find in helium atoms.

 

[ReinyDays]

He has pretty consistently spoken of a magnetic rock.

What are the magnetic properties of silicon dioxide? ... one thing, they are profoundly different from iron ...

Can you explain this "Ising Rock" ... is it silicon or is it iron? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What are the magnetic properties of silicon dioxide? ... one thing, they are profoundly different from iron ...

We know.

 

[ReinyDays]

We know.

Neither of you do ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither of you do ...

I assure you we do. I think maybe you need to settle down.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good. Lots of blow-hard action, I see. Well, might as well stir things up by adding some pertinent facts related by Ken Wheeler:

Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later. Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’. All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed.‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916

There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. “To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell

 

[ding]

Good. Lots of blow-hard action, I see. Well, might as well stir things up by adding some pertinent facts related by Ken Wheeler:

Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later. Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’. All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed.‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916

There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. “To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell

Ken Wheeler is Wrong

About Almost Everything!

kenswrong.com

 

[scruffy]

Good. Lots of blow-hard action, I see. Well, might as well stir things up by adding some pertinent facts related by Ken Wheeler:

Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later. Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’. All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed.‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916

There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. “To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell

Good job stirring the pot.

Well, I learned something interesting today.

For maybe 100 years now, people have been trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. The result is weird stuff like quantum gravity and string theory. In the one, time goes backwards and forwards at will, in the other spacetime is curved so as to maintain causality from any reference frame.

But here's what the empirical evidence says:

Gravity has no effect on entanglement. None. Zip. Zero. Squat.

Entanglement is somehow "orthogonal" to gravity.

That's an interesting result.

Because it suggests a "hidden dimension" for the correlation that takes place in entangled energy.

Which pretty much tends to favor a string theory over quantum gravity. While there are gravitational waves, they may be orthogonal to gravity itself. This could happen in a tiny compactified dimension that's curled up on itself, the result would be like the right hand rule in electricity and magnetism. (The spin goes around clockwise, the thumb points in the direction of the orthogonal field).

Quantum theory basically says everything's a harmonic oscillator, and it never ceases because vacuum energy isn't zero. Some people add "because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle", but that's kind of redundant. The fields "feel" each other according to their symmetries. So, whatever field supports entanglement, doesn't feel gravity.

This should be good news for the string theorists.