Re: Two photons... relative distance question

Dear Curious:

"Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1115572661.596004.161660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Wow.

It would really be good if you could leave some atribution to
whom you were replying.

> What defines 'non-local'?

When you can't measure a delay in signalling, that would be
local.

> How can we rely on the Michelson and
> Morely experiment if time is affected by
> our hurtling through space? (Being
> genuine, not facetious).

Consistency. Nature is repeatable, or Science could not exist.
MMX shows that motion through the aether (if there is any) is
fully consistent with:
1) no aether, or
2) a Lorentz aether, or
3) a dragged aether (other experiments disallow dragging).

> For the record, I believe that we can
> DEDUCE that something happens
> *NOW* distantly.

As does Mr. Seppalla. And what we "deduce" is unverifiable.
Science is about experimentation, verification, modelling,
prediction, and more experimentation (etc.).

> For that deduction we rely on our
> understanding of space-time to be
> accurate, which of course it may not be,
> but has proven so far to be reliable
> enough for our purposes.

It is a persistent illusion. And it still confounds those who
expect their provincial "common sense" to control Nature.

> If we know
> anything, this is how we know it -
> dependent on our assumptions proven
> by experience. So ultimately, yes, one
> can 'know' that something distant
> happens 'now', even if we don't measure
> it directly, because we can reliably
> predict the event based on other prior
> events and our formulae.

So assuming this thing-which-must-be-constantly-challenged is
true, then "x" can be known?

> For example, I 'know' that right now
> there are some light rays leaving the
> sun headed directly towards me.

For any given *now*, can you prove this? I'm just pulling your
leg a little, "don't sweat the small stuff".

> I also believe similarly that one can
> theoretically analyse a scenario in
> which distant things are postulated
> to happen *NOW* and be quite
> logical about it.

Experiment cannot discount no-aether vs. Lorentz-aether.
Therefore, we cannot *with certainty* know about "simultaneity"
in remote locations. All we can do is synchronize clocks, and be
unsurprised by the results we receive "back here".

> In such an analysis one can define
> any realistic event and a theory should
> still hold water (be self-consistent) when
> used to analyse the event, and in this
> case proving the event by measurement
> is of course not relevant.

It is the only relevancy available.

> (Perhaps Dave feels the same way
> and you have misunderstood each other.
> Or [perhaps I have just put myselkf in
> the same boat as him?!)

You are solidly in the same boat, yes. For something like 5
years, he has adopted new ways of describing the exact same
misunderstanding. At one time, he was naive (I'm sure). Now he
has raised towering structures to protect his misunderstanding.

A couple of thoughts...
1) Get "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.
2) Remember that reality (for science) is what you measure. All
else ("Truth", "Reality", etc.) is the domain of philosophy. It
ultimately comes down to: someone you "don't like" gets the same
measurement that you do.

David A. Smith


.