Speed of Light

Iblis was a bit colloquial with his phrasing... let me tighten it up a bit in the hope of reducing the confusion... Exactly There aren't two events, at space-like separation, that appear *individually* to have something weird going on. The observations made at each receiver are completely random. The only observation (event) which appears weird, is the observation of the correlations between *both* receivers - and this observation (event), wherever it takes place, necessarily requires a signal from each of the two receivers to communicate its respective results.Once we have seen both outputs, we may *think* that the correlations are due to some FTL signalling, but in no way can we see any evidence of this signalling in the individual observations. Causality is preserved entirely.

So can you show us some predictions calculated under Normal Realism, along with the basis of these calculations, and the associated observations confirming these predictions?You have mentioned the Pioneer Anomaly. Can you show any calculations based upon your spin/angular momentum concepts that give a predictive value to what we should see?For what you call Realism, I have already offered up the prediction of the g-factor, and to that I add the prediction of the rate of speed-up of orbit of binary pulsars based upon their quadrupole emission of gravitational radiation (gravity waves). There is little point in discussing Ockham's Razor in the view of comparing two competing theories until their predictive merits have been analysed and considered sufficiently equivalent. My theory that Goddidit last thursday in exactly the way we see will always win the Ockham's Razor test, but is doomed to failure when it comes to predictive capability. {must resist, must resist}Let's just repeat as above that let's compare predictive merits before we even go here...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This is certainly true. And this is a very common misconception amongst both layman and numerous young students over the years. This "instantanteous" "velocity" is exactly what a photon experiences, yet we know full well that the photon connects two events that are "null" separated, i.e. 1 light year away, 1 year ago, or for the Earth and Sun, 8 light minutes away, and 8 minutes ago.This obviously does not help in any way with the two recorders of the EPR experiment, which are recording events that are potentially light years away from each other, but within the same range of time.Furthermore, as I explained both above and in the previous EPR thread, no communication is necessary between two receivers anyway to create the EPR results - only qunatum variables. So here Viv is using the wrong explanation to solve a problem that does not exist

You misunderstand. True - although the unbounded "velocity" is unobservable and simply the result of calculation that can only be made with advance knowledge of the parameters of the journey. You will NEVER measure a velocity of greater than c. It is simply a result of time-dilation: you travel to Alpha Centauri (4.3 lyrs) at speed of light, and so time dilate your journey time down to say three weeks. Your effective velocity is then 4.3*52/3 times the speed of light. But length contraction ensures that the distance you perceive to Alpha Centauri as you travel there is much much less than 4.3 lyrs, and your apparent velocity is always below c. Completely and utterly wrong.The EPR "paradox" has NOTHING to do with these two velocities.This instantaneous velocity as you call it is the "experienced" velocity. A traveller at c ages zero time from Earth to Alpha Centauri, and so has effective infinite velocity, but he still leaves in 2010 and arrives in 2014.How does this help the results of the EPR experiement set up with the receivers at Earth and at Alpha Centauri, both taking results in 2010?????I repeat, the EPR paradox is resolved, not by communication at the speed of light (your suggestion which obviously does not solve the issue), nor by communication FTL (the standard non-local answer which causes far more problems than it solves), but by simple use of quantum variables that automatically have the observed statistics without any need to assume some FTL transmission of information.