Shoot a cannon ball into the air and after it reaches its peak, its inertia will go backwards. 4D space has gravity (so does 3D space), so the entangling particle is stopped dead when it comes back into 3D, then it falls. You're begging the question by assuming that inertia doesn't stop in 3D. The fact that light goes far faster proves that we are working with different physics. If it is too hot to wear a coat as I fly out of Miami, I don't assume that as a probably same situation when I land in Wasilla. There is no reason to assume that the simplest explanation is even probably correct. Besides, Occam's Razor is on my side, since it is simpler to assume that the Quantum Leap is made into an external dimension, as all leaps are. Play Hopscotch and you won't stay on the virtually 2D sidewalk. The exception to the paralysis of inertia is the Origin Event, childishly described as a "Big Bang," which assumes an impossible concentration of matter. All the matter/energy/space that created the universe entered through a non-typical event in 4D. So it was an explosion, which is not what happens in Entanglement. Not only are gravitons only in 4D, but there must be something else stuck there, which accounts for "Indeterminacy," which is another irrational theory accepted by neurotic degenerate escapists.
No, there is only one answer if you are stuck with 3D phenomena being the only valid ones. My answer is that 4D light, traveling at c^2, is trapped by the pressure of the whole universe. (This accounts for physicists refusing to admit that space is a substance that can exert force; the force in a measurable area is so small that it is undetectable. However, it could be used to account for the fact that galaxies aren't moving the way they should. Physicists make up another cartoon character to explain that. I don't know which is more childish: Darth Vader or Dark Matter.) So this is like having a car in which the speedometer is up to 80 mph but is held by chains. As soon as the chains are released or broken; it will shoot out at 80 mph. The fissioned nucleus travels at c squared until it hits something else. That collision is mc^2. Fission also creates a temporary gap where the nucleus was. A neutrino may be the gap that got away. We can enter 4D there and away we go! Anyway, what is the post-clacks' explanation of why 3D light is limited to 186,000 mph a second? What is dragging on it? I say it is space, which is a substance. Zero-point energy is just the energy of that substance.
It's not displaced; a thread is not a tightrope. I think we are making the equal and opposite error from Augustus's. He was too timid and narrow-minded; we are too wildly and childishly imaginative.
Is this a serious conversation or what? Ad Hominems about Nazis and degenerate escapists have no place in science. There are many problems with this assertion that gravity somehow reverses the inertia in 4D. First, you must ASSUME that there is mass in 4d to create this gravity. You must ASSUME that this mass is ubiquitous, as entangelment is not dependent on location. Then, if you make all these baseless assumptions, you're still left with the problem that gravity takes time to reverse inertia. If you are assuming a speed of C squared, that's a lot of inertia to reverse. None of what you are suggesting makes any rational sense. You act as though everything should just magically change when we hit a 4th dimension. There is no reason to believe that. In every known case, when a dimension is added, it just extends the already functional rules in another direction. It doesn't overturn them. You are the one making up all manner of assumptions to try to justify a theory that has no basis other than those assumptions. And again, you are ASSUMING that a quantum leap is being made in the first place. You are using your own conclusion as a given, which is the very essence of circular reasoning. Possible. Actually, 4D may be the root cause of indeterminacy. If the 3d universe that we see is brought about by a larger 4D universe (which we cannot perceive), then it stands to reason that there are many specifics that we cannot determine. We are left dealing with probabilities about what might be in that 4D space, since we cannot observe it directly.
Of course, this explanation still fails to answer why a measurement of speed would be a part of an energy calculation. Again kinetic energy is the only logical answer, 4D or not. And since the kinetic energy formula already squares the velocity, there is no need for wild theories about light actually traveling at c^2. Simple Newtonian physics explains it. Indeed.
I should be satisfied that you at least consider the possibility I am right about the "Big Bang" and "Indeterminacy." Both make my brain vomit. One of them offended even Einstein ("God does not play dice").
I know what you're up to. Your suggestion is like telling someone whose political position you disagree that he should go run for Congress or else he should not be taken seriously. Another Nettie trick, like demanding, "If you think we should help the Syrian rebels, why don't you join the Air Force? Put up or shut up!"
It's more like you saying "These quack voters refused to vote for me for the senate seat!" while you never actually ran for office and your name was never on the ballot.
I just hope that in some alternative, universe, our federal Congress really does have Faith in Capitalism and simply purchases the best solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.
http://www.abeautifulmind.proboards.com That's really got to be an alternative universe if in such a plutocrat's paradise, throwing money at a problem automatically solves it. See how the slimey Right imitates the slimey Left? Scientists should know that progress only comes from inventors, not investors. They should organize and go on strike until they get 50% of corporate patents. But they are castrated cripples by the time they are in a position to do that. Superior minds should analyze how superior athletes managed to get rewarded immediately, from childhood on.
Why explore something that doesn't exist. Parallel universes are an invention of man to explain away god.
I believe the public sector should compete with the private sector regarding the discovery of more perfect knowledge, even if only to lower that cost to the private sector. - - - Updated - - - Hypothetically, and in that alternative, we could be in Nexus 6, with Zardoz.
I for one think that all parallel universes converge into one agreed on truth. All possibilities happen but the most unlikely evaporate when the most likely is agreed upon. So there is nothing to really explore. Other dimensions exist but our reality and theirs are so different that they cannot co-exist. (I mean they do co-exist but ones reality has no meaning in the others) The best we can hope for is some kind of information exchange. But by all means we should support all exploration.
Explain away god? Why is that? Aren't heaven and hell parallel universes? Or do you believe that heaven is somewhere out in space and hell is in the center of the Earth?
I would like to explore one parallel universe, hypothetically, where our elected representatives are moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws, and we secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, simply because our Founding Fathers said so.
Simple athiesm used probability to explain creation for centuries. When it became clear that the Universe wasn't big enough to explain existance through probability the multiverse or cosmos was invented to expand the probality of creation to 1.
There's an important aspect of this you're ignoring (at least as far as I can tell). Your opposition in this area, (which seems to be all of modern scientific theory, at least, again, as far a I can tell) has demonstrated their points with mathematical rigor and proven it (that is, Relavity and Quantum Mechanics) over and over again. (Quantum Mechanics is the most proven "theory" in science, I've read). Until you can show us equations which back up your statements and survive peer review they're just interesting speculations, yes?
