Question How Could Einstein Come Up With Quantum Entanglement

[Space Hunter]

How Could Einstein Come Up With Quantum Entanglement and Worm Holes

What physics laws made him come up with that

 

[Jim Franklin]

The Special Theory of Relativity published in 1905
The General Theory of Relativity published in 1915

Have a read of those Space.com articles on the relevent aspect of it.

You should know that the genius of Einstein, by his own admission, was by reading the work other has undertaken, and seeing the links between them, this is what inspired him to evolve his Theory of Relativity. Einstien gets a lot of credit, but he himself said

“It is not that I'm so smart. But I stay with the questions much longer. The others worked hard on their discoveries, but they then moved on to make new ones, I am stubborn, I saw how the seperate ideas where linked and I joined them together, think of me as the secretary of science, putting everything right the managers did wrong"

 

[Classical Motion]

Einstein came up with a mathematical solution for a misunderstood postulate.

A mathematical explanation for a constant velocity of light….. from relative motion.

What he and others do not know……. Is the light has a constant speed…… but NOT a constant velocity.

He gave a solution for the wrong question.

The proper question is HOW does a thing have a constant speed, but NOT a constant velocity.

And that solution is……. A duty cycle. Not a frequency.

Intermittent speed. The speed is constant, only the intermittent duration changes with motion.

The intermittent part shifts, not the speed part.

Ta-DA. Light is only half of what you think it is. And that interrupting half is what shifts.

 

[Jim Franklin]

Einstein came up with a mathematical solution for a misunderstood postulate.

A mathematical explanation for a constant velocity of light….. from relative motion.

What he and others do not know……. Is the light has a constant speed…… but NOT a constant velocity.

He gave a solution for the wrong question.

The proper question is HOW does a thing have a constant speed, but NOT a constant velocity.

And that solution is……. A duty cycle. Not a frequency.

Intermittent speed. The speed is constant, only the intermittent duration changes with motion.

The intermittent part shifts, not the speed part.

Ta-DA. Light is only half of what you think it is. And that interrupting half is what shifts.

Can I humbly suggest you go back and read a physics book - and not one for 5 year olds or those who think the world is flat, but a real one that will explain to you why your post is clearly nonsensical and utter tosh.

 

[Gibsense]

Einstein came up with a mathematical solution for a misunderstood postulate.

A mathematical explanation for a constant velocity of light….. from relative motion.

What he and others do not know……. Is the light has a constant speed…… but NOT a constant velocity.

He gave a solution for the wrong question.

The proper question is HOW does a thing have a constant speed, but NOT a constant velocity.

And that solution is……. A duty cycle. Not a frequency.

Intermittent speed. The speed is constant, only the intermittent duration changes with motion.

The intermittent part shifts, not the speed part.

Ta-DA. Light is only half of what you think it is. And that interrupting half is what shifts.

I am trying to understand your comment. A velocity is a speed but also a direction. So, you seem to imply that light can have various directions. This is obvious so you mention frequency which I suppose = duty cycle. You mention intermittent so I guess you regard the frequency as on off on off. So, the 'on' part is always the same but the off part can change. That is what you are saying I think.

If so this arrangement is supposed to explain why the speed of light is a constant I guess as: 'the time taken by the off bit varies'. this doesn't work because different wavelengths would have different 'off' lengths but in reality, different wavelengths all behave the same when we look at the 'speed of light'

You have made this statement so many times before I had to try to understand this time.

 

[Jim Franklin]

I am trying to understand your comment. A velocity is a speed but also a direction. So, you seem to imply that light can have various directions. This is obvious so you mention frequency which I suppose = duty cycle. You mention intermittent so I guess you regard the frequency as on off on off. So, the 'on' part is always the same but the off part can change. That is what you are saying I think.

If so this arrangement is supposed to explain why the speed of light is a constant I guess as: 'the time taken by the off bit varies'. this doesn't work because different wavelengths would have different 'off' lengths but in reality, different wavelengths all behave the same when we look at the 'speed of light'

You have made this statement so many times before I had to try to understand this time.

It will give you a headache, its nonsense that makes no sense, in English or as statements about science. This type of comment usually gets put about by people to other to make it sound like they understand a subject when in fact they haven't the foggiest idea.

 

[stanwaterman]

Einstein came up with a mathematical solution for a misunderstood postulate.

A mathematical explanation for a constant velocity of light….. from relative motion.

What he and others do not know……. Is the light has a constant speed…… but NOT a constant velocity.

He gave a solution for the wrong question.

The proper question is HOW does a thing have a constant speed, but NOT a constant velocity.

And that solution is……. A duty cycle. Not a frequency.

Intermittent speed. The speed is constant, only the intermittent duration changes with motion.

The intermittent part shifts, not the speed part.

Ta-DA. Light is only half of what you think it is. And that interrupting half is what shifts.

It's dead easy to have a constant speed and not constant velocity! Just run in a circle.

 

[Classical Motion]

I suggest another method. If we change the speed or the direction, that's called acceleration.

I suggest another form of acceleration. An interrupted constant velocity.

An acceleration of being there. A change in presence. An alternation of presence.

 

[SMyers]

yea can't say i follow this lol, but i'll add that from what i understand none of it is a continual path anyway. the photons move in quantum jumps, where they exist and then don't exist. so whatever "speed" they are going, they aren't actually moving at all. they just disappear and then reappear further down the road. so it's not really a matter of "how fast they are moving" but how far of a gap they jump before landing again for us to detect them.

when they "land" they exist in 3-D space at one point. at (c) all space is reduced to a point, therefore they are stationary. when they "jump" they leave 3-D space and enter Time, where they are not stationary but move. this allows them to land again, after moving through time, on a new 3-D point further along the path. photons do not move through 3-D space, they move through Time.

at (c) in 3-D space time is also reduced to zero. therefore the photon does not experience time in 3D either, meaning the "landing" is instantaneous and then it is gone again. no matter how many times it lands zero times infinity is still zero. therefore ALL of the photons existence is not in 3D but travelling through time.

since this movement in Time is >0 means that the photon experiences movement on the Time vector, which means it expends energy to move. this is the source of red-shift, it represents the amount of Time the photon spent moving, regardless of how 'far' it jumped through 3-D

so i'm not sure if i agree or disagree with this topic lol, except to say i believe the speed of light in 3D is constant, and the speed of light in Time is constant, but that those speeds differ from each other.