On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 7:21 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 3:35:11 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:41 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 6:06:48 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 1:42 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 8:20:07 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> . All you have to do is come up with the dynamics of the retrocausal >>>>>> mechanism that explains the Aspect experiments. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I did: *The reflective path integral w/logical variables*. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is not the Aspect experiment. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I'll look at it sometime and formulate it in σCP. >>> >>> Programming (programming languages) is the future of physics. >>> >> >> I very much doubt that! >> >> >>> >>>> You are condemned as a charlatan by your silence on the important issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course I'm a charlatan. I've never claimed to be anything else. >>>>> >>>>> What are you? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Someone interested in physics......to the exclusion of unevidenced >>>> dogma. >>>> >>>> Look, Price has been banging on about retrocausal explanations of >>>> violations of the Bell inequalities for 30 or more years. And before that, >>>> there have been many years of similar ideas, such as Cramer's transactional >>>> interpretation and so on. On the surface, these ideas might seem plausible >>>> and attractive. But the fact is that even after all this time, they have >>>> succeeded in persuading only a few weak-minded individuals. Now why might >>>> that be? My explanation is that these ideas have never been applied to give >>>> convincing dynamical explanations for anything. In fact, if you try to >>>> apply retrocausal ideas to the Aspect experiment, you rapidly run into >>>> insuperable difficulties, and are forced to conclude that retrocausality >>>> can give only classical correlations -- the result that Lawrence alluded to >>>> some time ago. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> >>> There are a bunch of people working on both retrocausal and contextual >>> models, Some are physicists and mathematicians, not just philosophers. >>> >> >> And they are all wrong. >> >> >>> Its an open question (there is nothing closed* in physics). >>> >> >> Many things are "closed": the luminiferous aether, caloric, epicycles, >> etc, etc. >> >> >>> ts the Physics Gestapo that wants to swarm in (on what they see as the >>> "weak-minded individuals") and say it is ruled out of bounds. >>> >> >> Not "ruled out of bounds", just work through the details and show us how >> it works in practice. That is the element that is missing from all the hype >> you persist in posting. If you could come up with a convincing dynamical >> account of retrocausation as it operates in a real physical experiment, >> then you might have a smidgen more credibility. >> >> Bruce >> > > > Big deal. > > Physicists are so dumb they don't have a "mechanism" for gravity yet. > You really are remarkably ignorant! Newton did't have an "mechanism", but Einstein provided that in terms of the local curvature of space-time. > Some are looking for "gravitons"! > Some others have found them! Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT%3DZAFU2kMi4%2BTH9zxyCaUHD8famq9wYV%2Bcmf%3DUKYzJ2g%40mail.gmail.com.
