From: "@adelphia.com   
      
   David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:51:59 -0500, remove wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>You said that light exists until the photon hits something and is   
   >>absorbed.  What photon?  I thought you said you understood the duality   
   >>of light.  Obviously you don't.   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, the "duality" is that sometimes it's a wave, and sometimes it's a   
   > particle.   
   >   
   > We call those particles "photons".   
   >   
   > You can treat it as a metaphor if you like, as I did, since I was using it   
   > in an informal conversation.   
   No you said " but photons aren't eternal -   
   they only last as long as it takes for them to be absorbed."   
   What photon?   
   Sometimes it has the properties of a particle, if that is what you are   
   testing for.  Other times it has the properties of a wave, if that is   
   what you are testing for.  It seems to be other.  We have no information   
   about it's true nature because light changes when we look at it.  A   
   particle and wave are mutually exclusive.  Get that?? A particle and   
   wave are mutually exclusive.  Yes, it is a fact that a particle can not   
   be a wave and a wave can not be a particle.  They tried vibrating   
   particals but that proved false.  It (light) can not be both, yet it   
   seems to be.  Light is not objective.  So who can say if light is or is   
   not absorbed by anything.  We can't tell.  It seems to be when we want   
   it to be or are testing for it to be.  In reality who knows?   
      
   An Electron can be in two places at once.  It can travel in two   
   directions at once.  Say for example North and East at the same time.   
   No No not Northeast as in Vector geometry but both North and East at the   
   same time.  A single electron (feel free to insert photon here) can   
   enter two openings placed at a distance at the same time, until you test   
   to see if it is indeed going thou both, then it is fixed in one or the   
   other.  Here I am says the happy little electron.  Bell theorem proves   
   that as in the subatomic realm so in the macro realm.  It is forty years   
   old and did cause a very real contraversity over the years.  You could   
   read the book by James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin Philosophical   
   Consequences of Quantum theory.  It is really just copulation of papers   
   presented at the University of Notre Dame in 1987 of the same name.   
   Quite interesting that the disagreement is not that the universe is   
   subjective but how that affect us.   
      
   Your statement is not just wildly incorrect but shows alack of   
   understanding.   
   >   
   >>You deride and belittle others for believing in a God that has no proof   
   >>and say you believe in science which has proof.  I give you proof and   
   >>either you don't understand it or you run from it trying to move the   
   >>argument into shallow water so you can form an argument you can debate.   
   >   
   >   
   > You've offered nothing like proof so far, just the same assertions over   
   > and over.   
   >   
   >   
   >>Try to focus on the argument and no go off somewhere else.   
   >   
   >   
   > Funny, given that you've failed up until this post to answer any of my   
   > points.   
   >   
   I really don't care if you can get useful information faster then light.   
     It is meaningless if Captain Kurk can talk to Earth in real time while   
   he is Warping around Ur-anus.   
   >   
   >>Bells theory proved that any deterministic theory which preserved   
   >>"locality" would have certain consequences for measurements preformed at   
   >>a distance from one another.  Thus the correlation between the sets of   
   >>events is much stronger then any "local" deterministic theory could   
   >>allow.  Whats more, this stronger correlation is PRECISELY that which is   
   >>predicted by quantum physics.   
   >   
   >   
   > So far so good.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>I know of no threat to Bell's work.   
   >   
   >   
   > Nor I.   
   >   
   >   
   >>Therefor   
   >   
   >   
   > Therefore.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>You can not have the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that   
   >>happens is predictable   
   >   
   >   
   > A minor point; but as I've already told you Newtonian physics is not   
   > always deterministic.   
      
   No, it is not a minor point.   
   >   
   >   
   >>and where one measurement site could not affect another set of   
   >>measurements being preformed light years away, at a distance that a   
   >>light-signal could not bridge.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's "Einsteinian", as in Einstein Podalsky Rosen paradox.   
      
   The EPR paper was written to disprove Quantum.  It failed to do so.  The   
   paper is and has over time proved to have no merit.  Well no that is not   
   correct the paper was usefull in proving that Quantom is correct.  The   
   fact that the universe is not Newtonian and I use the word correctly,   
   has been proved and again.   
   Talk about searching the Internet for factoids and not really   
   understanding what you are reading.   
      
     The universe you think exists is referred to as Newtonian or Classical.   
      
   The example is for Bell is ...   
   "The argument for Bell's inequalities is absurdly simple.  Particles   
   have a property called spin.  We can measure for spin in any direction   
   we like, but for a given particle we have to make a choice, for we   
   cannot measure in two or more directions on any given particle.  Any   
   measurement will yield exactly one of two values up (+) or down (-).  We   
   now prepare two particles A particle and B particle in a special   
   correlated state (the singlet state), and let them fly off in opposite   
   directions.  In any given direction an individual particle has a 50-50   
   chance of fielding a plus or a minus when measured. In addition the   
   spins are correlated.  If we measure the A and B particles in the same   
   direction they always yield opposite results.  If, in a sequence of such   
   experiments , we measure the two particles in different directions the   
   results are still correlated, though in a more complicated way. ...   
   Locality  provides a secound natural assumption.  If the particles are   
   widely separated at the time of measurement, the value of the A   
   particles spin in a given direction should not depend on what the   
   B-experimenter decides to do with the B particle...".   
   Paul Teller   
      
      
   But it does.  Thus the universe we experience is changed by our very   
   observation of it.  Jeeze this is sophomore physics.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>Let me place this in simpler terms .......   
   >>   
   >>In order to have an objective universe you must preserve "locality".   
   >>What locality means is that what you observe must remain separate and   
   >>distinct from what I observe far far away.  So far away that a beam of   
   >>light would take time to reach my observation point.  So it has been   
   >>proved, quite often because of the consequences thereof, that your   
   >>observation affects my observation at a distance.   
   >   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)