PB666

Thats what they all say. I click the thread because i mistook it for another ' Don't click this' thread.

Nope, 37. Sign must match number. BTW if you change the post after mine to 38 your chain will become active again, then the value would be 41.

Don't forget to refresh. Also if an error is detected you have to provide the poster ample opportunity to fix it.

fixed

37 ▼

39 ▼

39 ▼

39 (-)

39 (-)

But they would not do it now, the best they can do it replace the panels and batteries and gyroscopes.

41 (-)

close enough. https://carnegiescience.edu/node/2053 The article is disappointing because it does not give a list of distances.

hah, there first Apple that I owned was 4 Mhz and came with 64kb of memory, no HDD, a 5.25 inch floppy drive, a black and white monitor. It had an instruction set of 64 that literally could be programmed in hexadecimal (faster than assembly language). The first 'internet' connection was 2.4 kbaud and required a VT100 terminal emulation mode. My first chat room as sci.aquaria on the usenet, you had to read practically all the messages on the usenet to see what was in your group. My first build was a 386-DX2-40 built in 1990 it had 64 mbytes of ram (yes, 64) since then I have built about 30 pc's mostly for work. I tend to recycle parts but keep connectors, no space for dead computers. First computer was with punch cards. Music was the system for creating code, fortran. PCs were just starting to come out of the box, pretty much a novelty at the time.

You misspelled "knowlage", you forgot the space between blah and "...", and it should be ". . ." and it was a run-on sentence. The specified reasoning is weak, therefore. I clicked because the title used a contraction and to inform the OP that titles should not contain contractions. Also to inform the OP that because you had clicked to right the rules of the game, that was your primary motivation and therefore the secondary motivation is not a valid reason, therefore the thread should be stopped immediately and blocked, just like all the other threads with similar titles have been securely blocked. Resistance is useless.

In one of the papers, the produce a pair, one is trapped the other travels through space and interacts with another known photon, the photon that was trapped reflects the first interaction. Was this true communication or was it selection.

Yall messed up the last valid post was here xorthbTanover 44 (-) see rules, you have a chance tonchange it if not the next valid entry becomes 43 (-). Remember to refresh your GUi frequently, you may not recieve updates from other players before you post. OK it looks like it has not been changed so . . . . . . . . . 43 (-)

45 (-), Ich spreche duetsch nicht.

45

Other issues, you start the article in first person singular, the switch to use 1st person plural, then 3rd person plural and then switch to 3rd person singular, then back to 1st person singular. Tone is decidedly not Technical English, sorry. Note how you switch person (see underlined words) in the same paragraph. I, I, Let's (Let us), us, We, their, their, us. The only person you did not use was second person singular. You need to reach much (replaced a lot) deeper and move away from an editorial tone toward a descriptive tone. A word about abbreviations, do not use them unless you are only going to use them three or more times, and they should be defined in context.

44 (-)

43. (-)

Its +/- IMO, read the most recents links i have provided. The important problem is called coherance problem, the problem has been stabilizing entangled pairs so that one can determine their state in one experiment photons that are filtered can determine the fate of the pairs. But the problem is that we cannot know for certain whether this is actually conversion or a selection. IOW the photon you read in the box appears only to be entagled when the other photon is reported a certain way, and if it is entangled to a third party particle that was sent to expose on part of the pair. There may be a bias on the part of researchers not to emphasize un read photons because chatty pairs would be a very powerful tool if it proved to be true. Here is my impression. Time processes as a consequence of delta in the quantum foam, this does not mean that all components of the foam evolve at the same rate, some evolve through space and others through spacetime. We register the universe as a probabilistic outcome of many events most are local but some are not. If the photon pairs are connected, then FTL should be possible, but more than likely the spacetime cell that created the photons creates new spacetime entities, these fates are then determined and only can be observed. But i don't create physics just by thinking about it. As has been stated publically by many physicist that There are many unexplored caveots in quantum mechanics, we need to keep this close to our hearts and allow researchers to explore these without adding bias or leading arguments. So that the complaint about MWI is this suppose we have a pair of photon these photons then travel through a double slit 13.7 billion years ago if we track the quantum foam, by the time the photon reaches today it has a number, almost infinite, of possible interactions that is in the disk representing our known universe. Either all of that existed back 13.7 billion years ago, or that as the universe progressively adds near universes are created that would be required just for that pair. But these are particles that we can observe, what about particles that we cant observe, they can be as old as inflation traveling as fields with potential outcomes greater in volume than our visible universe, requiring the creation of infinitely large outcomes. We don't observe this, we observe a universe where most of the determinism is local. So that it appears that resolution is often governed by local events, things that happen proximally in this thing called quantum foam, the superposition of quantum states. The states however, as i see it does not require uniform cells, but quite the opposite you can have structure composes of infinitely thin spirally shapes, flat shapes such as near a quantum singularity, etc. So that the extent of an interaction may be governed by the interacting particles. Its a reason, for instance why a resonance orbital can extend the length of millions of atoms, or potential why an electron orbital in the cannae drive might exist outside the drive itself. I dont have a problem with spacetime battling it out locally just the wierdist possible solutions. These wierd solutions to us are black swans, its not up to physics to confine itself to our thinking, but for us to discover and elucidate the variances that reveal black swans. This goes into to how photons resolve to understand how it interacts with spacetime.

42 (-)

https://blogofthecosmos.com/2016/06/27/why-do-we-spend-very-little-on-science/

43 (-)