XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, soc.history.ancient   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/9/2025 5:33 PM, JTEM wrote:   
   > On 11/8/25 9:52 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >   
   >> You cannot point to a single scientific experiment and/or observation   
   >> that supports retrocausality   
   >   
   > Delayed Choice Quantum Entanglement   
   >   
   > That's one.   
   >   
   > Actually, if you do the Google, it started with light originating   
   > a gazillion years ago, observed through gravitational lensing.   
   >   
   >> vis-à-vis some sort of "time travel".   
   >   
   > The thing you've got to remember about Einstein is that, according   
   > to him time is "Relative." Its not the same for everyone everywhere   
   > but the different observations are correct for everyone everywhere.   
   >   
   > In other words, if I see it happening backwards, it really happened   
   > backwards, even if some other perspective says it happened at the   
   > same time.   
   >   
   >> As for #2, we will have to agree to disagree.  No theoretical   
   >> physicist believes that any and all solutions to GR/QFT is indicative   
   >> of some natural occurrence in the real World.   
   >   
   > You're just making shit up.   
   >   
   > The fact is, if someone is within the realm of possibilities then it   
   > all comes down to probabilities, and as unlikely as it is occur it   
   > had to occur.   
   >   
   > The universe is just too big.   
   >   
   > Like I said:  Purely natural NUCLEAR FREAKING REACTORS have existed,   
   > and no doubt do exist on other worlds.   
   >   
      
   What you're posting is just nuts.  Some reactions (both nuclear and/or   
   chemical) have a probability of ZERO occurring.  Lots of examples of   
   these exist and are easily found online; here's one:   
      
   Fe{+3} + Sn{+4} -> Fe{+2} + Sn{+2)   
      
   The above is a chemical reaction which cannot happen.  Ergo, it's   
   possible to describe things that never happen, ever.   
      
   Your example of natural fission (or, fusion) reactions is irrelevant.   
   Those types of reactions are POSSIBLE, as opposed to backwards   
   causality, which is IMPOSSIBLE.   
      
   Our "big universe" is irrelevant; the same physics applies everywhere.   
      
   As for time being "relative", this blanket statement is false, and I   
   have already told you this!   
      
   An observer's proper time is an INVARIANT quantity, that is, ALL   
   observers agree on the time that another observer is measuring (e.g.,   
   "if Alice says that her clock reads 3 PM, everyone will agree that   
   Alice's clock is really at 3 PM".  It is only the case that Alice will   
   say that any other observer who is in motion relative to her will have a   
   clock that is moving SLOWER than her clock.   
      
   Gravitational lensing described by General Relativity, the curvature of   
   spacetime around a large massive object and the path (a geodesic) that   
   light will take; such has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics, as   
   General Relativity is a classic, geometric description of gravitation.   
      
   If two events, A & B, are causally related (Event A caused Event B),   
   then ALL observers will AGREE that A caused B, and therefore, that Event   
   A happened BEFORE Event B happened.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)