Space( ) and Time ( * * )

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 8
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Part 1} Observed  ---Universe ( @ )--- and Observer --- Me ball ( * * )----

Probed ---Universe ( @ )---  and Probe--- Me ball ( * * )----

Recorded---Universe ( @ )--- and Recorder---Me ball ( * * )----

It from bit = information entanglement is the line---of----relationship ( @ )------( * * ) and not just A or B

The medium { Verb } is not the message { Meta-space }

The Stage { Background @ } and The Act { Me ball * * }



Part 2} .." I like to think of squashed entanglement as the correlation (or transmitted information) between two people (or events) and conditioned over and minimized over all possible observers . In terms of this narrative, what the CKW inequality is saying is that a message is “heard” better if person sends a single message to a joint delegation of two people and , instead of sending separate messages to and .

....It’s what people call a synergetic or superadditive effect. "....



(@)------line-----of-----relationship------( * * ) aka ....."spooky action at a distance." { Eintstein }...

entanglement......."The first physicist to use the word "entanglement" was Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. He described entanglement as the most essential aspect of quantum mechanics, saying its existence is a complete departure from classical lines of thought. "...


Part 3} a line of relatiohshipe can be geodesic arc or as a trajectory or set of trajectories Ex;

AOOOOOOOOOOOB

(A)(  )(  )(  )(  )(  )(  )(  )(  )(B) here A and B looped, geodesic line{s} of relationship and are also enclosed by an outer geodesic of Gravity









#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ebuc
I'm 95% sure this is nonsense, nothing personal.
Topic's author
#3
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm 100% sure your response is based in non-sense of the ego.

It is often obvious that people like you have nothing valid to say, so instead, out of boredom and ego, they spout non-sense hoping it will stick to the wall like poop does. Sad :--(
.
Please share when you actually have something valid to say.

Valid adjective: valid
  1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
Contrary to your narrow  viewpoint of not being to comprehend  outside of you ego, others actually like to consider a larger spectrum of existence.

...." Part 1} Observed  ---Universe ( @ )----"....  PLease dont strain your dreaming liberty brain, as I dont what a stroke on my account.


#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
@ADreamOfLiberty
@ebuc
In fairness, it is often very difficult to formulate a valid response to some of your ideas (see above). Ideas that you propose are valid, but ideas that cannot be readily verified.


@ebuc, ADreamOfLiberty.

And ego abounds within this discussion format.

And ego is very much a two way transaction.



Not a criticism, just an observation based upon the above data transaction.
Topic's author
#5
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed...."In fairness, it is often very difficult to formulate a valid response to some of your ideas (see above). Ideas that you propose are valid, but ideas that cannot be readily verified."...
Fairness.  More mouth no bite.  Try again Zed as you and dreaming liberty brain are making poor attempt at entangling yourselves.

Please share when your prepared to entertain obvious and verified set of truths of entanglement and so much more........" Part 1} Observed  ---Universe ( @ )----" and that is just the first line of text, that, you have not probed, much less recorded in lackadaisical approach to entanglement ---or lack thereof--.  * ? *


Universe is everything including me ---B Fuller--- ergo,  ---me ball in Universe ---( * @ * )----

Environment is everything excluding me ---B Fuller--- ergo, ---me ball ( * * )   Environment ( E )----


.......space( time ) i ( time )space......

i = Meta-space ego

(    ) = positive shaped Gravity

)( = negative shape Dark Energy

/\/\/\/\/ = Euclidean format for a sine-wave ergo observed time associated with  quantifications of occupied space

*  * = bilateral conciousness ergo me ball ( * * )

( @ ) = Universe  as the finite wholistic, occupied space integrity background  environment of me ball

space = macro-infinite non-occupied space, background to the finite Universe of occupied space

Yes, the Universe does create itself  LINK  in the sense, that, it is eternally regenerative integrity.





Topic's author
#6
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Part 4}  -----in--> line--of--relationship <--in------ and at minimum, a  Prime Vector Value 2 in Synergetics

Prime Vector Value 2, is two radii (--) and more specifically a radii  --in bold as follows--- from  observer/observed (A) and observer/observed (B), ergo,  (--)(--)

However, the line---of---relationship called --->entanglement<----, is alleged to be instantaneous over any distance, even tho our verification of that entanglement resultant is limited, as the speed-of-radiation.

Here is another way of viewing the Gravitational {space } relationship between (A) and (B) and in this expression, we have alternating sets of vertical and horizontal --ergo precessed, 2D planes at 90 degrees to each other--- views;

(A)--(  )--(  )--(  )--(  )(B) and here again, observer/observed (A) and (B) are embraced by Gravitational geodesics { (  ) }.

(  ) = positive Gravitational space

)( = negative Dark Energy space

/\/\/ = invaginated sine-wave as observed time{ quanta }  associations


Yes, in so far as,  Universe is eternally regenerative.  Naught is lost or created, only recycled.

#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Naught is lost or created.

Is it possible to lose nothing?....If there is nothing to lose....One tends to lose something.

And is is possible to create nothing?....As one would expect an outcome from creation.
Topic's author
#8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Naught is lost or created.
See first law of thermodynamics Zed.

This old news Ive bee presenting in many forums for years, including both DArts.

None{ naught } is lost or created

If you want to believe something{ occupied space } is crreated from where before the was truth non-occupied space, then more power to your ever finding evidence of such.

Singularities are resultant of the laws of General Relativy, of which Roger Penrse wone the nobel prize --2018 }--  for his math exposing this resultant of GR.

I believe GR is incorrect at  such micro-scales of existence. I.e 3D, occupied space + time cannot be destroyed nor created.

IVe posted various Roger Penrose vids in and around this issue and this vid in first post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8p1yqnuk8Y

Here is another PBS one about this  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY