Philosophy Now Forum

Yes is spooky action also at one in the same time spooky relativity.

Well, you sure got it right that Relativity theory is spookeh....

Wanderlands do you know what im talking here about spooky action at a distance. An action must involve relativity . So the relativity in spooky action is the spooky in the spooky action. And that means all relativity including relativity in timespace is spooooky.

Wanderlands do you know what im talking here about spooky action at a distance. An action must involve relativity . So the relativity in spooky action is the spooky in the spooky action. And that means all relativity including relativity in timespace action is spooooky.

What I meant by spookeh was that it's not true and not based on fact.

There must be an infinite nonlocal relativity between entangled particals. Its the relativity between the entangled particals that is spooky and nonlocal. So then we can say that time space relativity is nonlocal.

jackles wrote:There must be an infinite nonlocal relativity between entangled particals. Its the relativity between the entangled particals that is spooky and nonlocal. So then we can say that time space relativity is nonlocal.

I suspect you're entangling two different concepts here but in my opinion you're quite right to do so. Entanglement is ordinarily regarded as a feature of quantum mechanics but in fact it should be regarded as a feature of relativity.

What makes you think that way leo. It would mean the universe is expanding from potential relativity.

jackles wrote:What makes you think that way leo. It would mean the universe is expanding from potential relativity.

It's not easy to explain in a forum such as this, jackles, and I owe you a confession. I'm a philosopher of physics with an ulterior motive for joining this forum. I've written my own philosophy which goes by the fetching title of the philosophy of the bloody obvious. I've posted a synopsis of this work in my blog which I invite you to read before I comment further. It is not radical crackpot science and I do not refute the validity of modern physics as a powerful predictive tool in our modern world. However our current models of physics have no explanatory authority because they are founded on a false assumption about the existential nature of space and time. This false assumption goes all the way back to the original clash of ideas between Leibniz and Newton and it eventually gave birth to the spacetime paradigm of modern physics. I claim that this paradigm is not a true representation of our physical world but merely a mathematical analogue of such a representation. Essentially what my philosophy does is offer an ontology to underpin the epistemic models of physics. I'm after Kant's "ding und sich", the "thing as it is" which lies behind it all. I have a feeling you might find it interesting.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/