Re: parallel universes photo??

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:12:40 GMT, mmm <spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2004 14:34:43 -0700, tandym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (sonya) wrote:
>
>>tandym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (sonya) wrote in message
news:<7bf6888e.0406030741.60179ade@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>>> Scalar <ggg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<tqdva05rc2oqrdvsh7f589rjahkg6vhbj1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>>> > On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:25:42 GMT, bob <thanatos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > >"Syntax Error" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >>"Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kolker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> > >>news:RCmoc.76582$kh4.4390805@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>>  
>>> > >>> > Is that because it is nonsense?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The many-worlds interpretation of qm is consistent with the
formalism
>>> > >>> and the experimental sup****t. Writers such as David Deutch (the
Bird Man
>>> > >>> of Otherwhen) take it seriously. However many-worlds does not
tell us we
>>> > >>> can freely travel from one alternate to another. Good-bye
Star-Gates.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Bob Kolker
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>If I understand it correctly, a quantum computer exists in many
parallel
>>> > >>universes. If this is true, could such a computer be used to
communicate
>>> > >>with alternate timelines in these universes?
>>> > 
>>> > {snip}
>>> > 
>>> > Syntax error is asking a very relevant question, and in fact the
parallel
>>> > theory idea where parallel universes can communicate with each other
*is* a
>>> > syntax error, or a contradiction of itself.
>>> > 
>>> > Once anything (parallel universe or whatever) communicates with
another, it
>>> > assumes a method of connection.  If something is connected it is not
a
>>> > wholly separate entity.
>>> > 
>>> > Even the term 'quantum' (4) assumes the very thing they are trying
to
>>> > 'prove', which is there's a parallel universe operating in an
alleged 4th
>>> > dimension.
>>> > 
>>> > Parsimony rules here, an the whole scientific field defined as
'quantum' is
>>> > expounding unnecessary complexities.  There's a much simpler method
of
>>> > looking at 'quantum' as being a sub-variable of what's already known
to
>>> > exist, which is a 3D Universe.
>>> > I
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Couldn't we just say that parallel universes aren't so much parallel
>>> to ours... as they are simply 'out of phase'?  Then we could assume
>>> that while they all occupy the same 'plane' (or brane?) as us, that is
>>> the one thing that is the common variable that would enable those
>>> 'quantum computers' to communicate with each other (that would connect
>>> them) - rather not that there is more than one computer, so much as
>>> the computer itself exists in all phases simultaneously.
>>> 
>>> just blathering on, I know...
>>> Sonya
>>
>>This is interesting (actually all of their photos are interestin) but
>>this photo especially... assuming that the photo in question (the
>>second one) does show shoes that match the lady in the very back,
>>bending over the table in the first photo (behind the girl playing
>>with her hair)  then the 'other dimensional cross' would be slightly
>>*ahead* of ours... or maybe even more interesting, shows a 'skip' so
>>that for just a few seconds we saw '60' seconds into the future.
>>
>>http://photos2.ghostweb.com/calb1.html
>>
>>then again, it could all be bunk too... *grin*
>
>Electromagnetic fields caused the 'phase ****ft', it's not another
dimension.

I've noticed wen your ass talks, there is the distinct odor of
tequila.

You know nothing about electromagnetic fields, much less phase
****fting. 

Where did it come from, the static charge in her hair?

Jade