Air Resistance

I have given you data on the teleportation of 'atoms'. I have no evidence on the teleportation of solid matter, but that is irrelevant. If atoms can be teleported then matter can be teleported. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are being so difficult about this.

Is it because you're wrong?

If you consider asking for a source being difficult, I guess I am. You said that teleportation of matter has been achieved, apparently without comprehending a fundamental difference between teleporting qubits and teleporting anything with mass. I'm sorry that you do not have any basis for your claims.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 11, 2015, 02:24:09 PM

I have given you data on the teleportation of 'atoms'. I have no evidence on the teleportation of solid matter, but that is irrelevant. If atoms can be teleported then matter can be teleported. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are being so difficult about this.

Is it because you're wrong?

If you consider asking for a source being difficult, I guess I am. You said that teleportation of matter has been achieved, apparently without comprehending a fundamental difference between teleporting qubits and teleporting anything with mass. I'm sorry that you do not have any basis for your claims.

I provided data on the basis of my claims, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

to neimoka, this form of teleportation is, in my view, fairly different, but you are ignoring how matter is being teleported. information is all that needs to be transmitted, as it means the matter at the far end takes on the necessary properties.

Yes but I don't see 'transmitting qbuits and reassembling' type of teleportation doing what is required here, you'd have a massive object crossing the horizon between earth's 'planes' and that matter would have to go somewhere on the originating side and end up somewhere - presumably to the side it's travelling to, or new the matter would have to be conjured up from somewhere on that side that could then take the form of the object... something along those lines. Anyway, I was just asking for a source.

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:28:50 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 11, 2015, 02:24:09 PM

I have given you data on the teleportation of 'atoms'. I have no evidence on the teleportation of solid matter, but that is irrelevant. If atoms can be teleported then matter can be teleported. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are being so difficult about this.

Is it because you're wrong?

If you consider asking for a source being difficult, I guess I am. You said that teleportation of matter has been achieved, apparently without comprehending a fundamental difference between teleporting qubits and teleporting anything with mass. I'm sorry that you do not have any basis for your claims.

I provided data on the basis of my claims

where?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:25:54 PM

to neimoka, this form of teleportation is, in my view, fairly different, but you are ignoring how matter is being teleported. information is all that needs to be transmitted, as it means the matter at the far end takes on the necessary properties.

Yes but I don't see 'transmitting qbuits and reassembling' type of teleportation doing what is required here, you'd have a massive object crossing the horizon between earth's 'planes' and that matter would have to go somewhere on the originating side and end up somewhere - presumably to the side it's travelling to, or new the matter would have to be conjured up from somewhere on that side that could then take the form of the object... something along those lines. Anyway, I was just asking for a source.

the source has been given, you've rejected it.
as i said, i don't accept that form of teleportation, but it's possible. if you believe in air, that would supply matter that can be altered to gain the properties of the matter (which would become air in the reverse of the process).

where?

I have quoted several links. Are you having trouble seeing them?

Also, it might help you to understand what my original claim was. Which was:

There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents teleportation of matter. Small scale teleportation has already been achieved in labs.

Now I'm sorry that my claim wasn't what you wanted it to be. I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose, or you simply misread what I had typed. I have bolded the claim for you and I have italicized the statement so that you can tell the difference between the two things. It also might help if you look up the definition of "claim" and the definition of "statement".

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:25:54 PM

to neimoka, this form of teleportation is, in my view, fairly different, but you are ignoring how matter is being teleported. information is all that needs to be transmitted, as it means the matter at the far end takes on the necessary properties.

Yes but I don't see 'transmitting qbuits and reassembling' type of teleportation doing what is required here, you'd have a massive object crossing the horizon between earth's 'planes' and that matter would have to go somewhere on the originating side and end up somewhere - presumably to the side it's travelling to, or new the matter would have to be conjured up from somewhere on that side that could then take the form of the object... something along those lines. Anyway, I was just asking for a source.

the source has been given, you've rejected it.
as i said, i don't accept that form of teleportation, but it's possible. if you believe in air, that would supply matter that can be altered to gain the properties of the matter (which would become air in the reverse of the process).

A google search was the source? Vaux said that matter can be teleported, his search was about teleportation of information.

If you (or vaux) are saying that an object turns into air when it leaves one side of the disk and rematerialises as rearranged air molecules on the other side... uh, I guess you can say that, if you really want to. I imagine there would be detectable side effects though, a large volume of air would be needed to get the protons for say a person or an aircraft.

A google search was the source? Vaux said that matter can be teleported, his search was about teleportation of information.

If you (or vaux) are saying that an object turns into air when it leaves one side of the disk and rematerialises as rearranged air molecules on the other side... uh, I guess you can say that, if you really want to. I imagine there would be detectable side effects though, a large volume of air would be needed to get the protons for say a person or an aircraft.

I said that it's theoretically possible to transfer matter.


The claim I made was that teleportation has been achieved on a small scale. I have provided ample data from 'reputable' sources on this subject. Why you choose to remain obtuse is beyond me, but I suspect it's because you simply misunderstood my original contention and are now trying to play it off to save face.

Am I wrong?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:34:37 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:25:54 PM

to neimoka, this form of teleportation is, in my view, fairly different, but you are ignoring how matter is being teleported. information is all that needs to be transmitted, as it means the matter at the far end takes on the necessary properties.

Yes but I don't see 'transmitting qbuits and reassembling' type of teleportation doing what is required here, you'd have a massive object crossing the horizon between earth's 'planes' and that matter would have to go somewhere on the originating side and end up somewhere - presumably to the side it's travelling to, or new the matter would have to be conjured up from somewhere on that side that could then take the form of the object... something along those lines. Anyway, I was just asking for a source.

the source has been given, you've rejected it.
as i said, i don't accept that form of teleportation, but it's possible. if you believe in air, that would supply matter that can be altered to gain the properties of the matter (which would become air in the reverse of the process).

A google search was the source? Vaux said that matter can be teleported, his search was about teleportation of information.

If you (or vaux) are saying that an object turns into air when it leaves one side of the disk and rematerialises as rearranged air molecules on the other side... uh, I guess you can say that, if you really want to. I imagine there would be detectable side effects though, a large volume of air would be needed to get the protons for say a person or an aircraft.

you know what a google search does, right? you quoted several examples. read the articles you're quoting. information was teleported in such a way that it was imparted onto molecules at the other end. that is functionally teleportation.
the volume of air would not be huge, and would be compensated for when natural air goes through, if you believe in that.

as i have also said, this is not the proposal i accept.

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:32:33 PM

where?

I have quoted several links. Are you having trouble seeing them?

Also, it might help you to understand what my original claim was. Which was:

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 11, 2015, 01:09:07 PM

There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents teleportation of matter. Small scale teleportation has already been achieved in labs.

Now I'm sorry that my claim wasn't what you wanted it to be. I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose, or you simply misread what I had typed. I have bolded the claim for you and I have italicized the statement so that you can tell the difference between the two things. It also might help if you look up the definition of "claim" and the definition of "statement".

Sorry, I only saw the google search and one link after that which was also for teleportation of qubits, were there others?

I specifically asked for sources on teleportation of matter, explicitly making a distinction to teleportation of information. Instead of clarifying on this distinction you just discovered you kept talking about teleportation of atoms which are matter, and instead of linking to a source on even the theoretical possibility of teleportation of matter, you linked to a google search for teleportation of information. Don't try and twist things around.

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:40:08 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:34:37 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:25:54 PM

to neimoka, this form of teleportation is, in my view, fairly different, but you are ignoring how matter is being teleported. information is all that needs to be transmitted, as it means the matter at the far end takes on the necessary properties.

Yes but I don't see 'transmitting qbuits and reassembling' type of teleportation doing what is required here, you'd have a massive object crossing the horizon between earth's 'planes' and that matter would have to go somewhere on the originating side and end up somewhere - presumably to the side it's travelling to, or new the matter would have to be conjured up from somewhere on that side that could then take the form of the object... something along those lines. Anyway, I was just asking for a source.

the source has been given, you've rejected it.
as i said, i don't accept that form of teleportation, but it's possible. if you believe in air, that would supply matter that can be altered to gain the properties of the matter (which would become air in the reverse of the process).

A google search was the source? Vaux said that matter can be teleported, his search was about teleportation of information.

If you (or vaux) are saying that an object turns into air when it leaves one side of the disk and rematerialises as rearranged air molecules on the other side... uh, I guess you can say that, if you really want to. I imagine there would be detectable side effects though, a large volume of air would be needed to get the protons for say a person or an aircraft.

you know what a google search does, right? you quoted several examples.

Well since you discovered that I have quoted several, what do you think?

read the articles you're quoting. information was teleported in such a way that it was imparted onto molecules at the other end. that is functionally teleportation.
the volume of air would not be huge, and would be compensated for when natural air goes through, if you believe in that.

as i have also said, this is not the proposal i accept.

I very specifically asked about teleportation of matter. The sources given were about teleportation of information.

I am not trying to twist anything around. Quite the opposite. You can clearly see my original quote, but I'll post it for you again since you seem to have a hard time comprehending it.

There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents teleportation of matter. Small scale teleportation has already been achieved in labs.

Where did I say that matter has been teleported in a lab? Do you see that typed up there anywhere? Because I don't.

And yes, I still stand by my original google search link because that is exactly what I was referring to. You are simply asking for evidence of something that I never claimed. How do you expect me to deliver on your ridiculous imaginary claim? It's almost like you're moving the goal post a bit.

Once again, please show me where I claimed matter has been teleported in a lab.

I very specifically asked about teleportation of matter. The sources given were about teleportation of information.

You asked, yes. But so what? I never made the claim that you're claiming I made, so your plea for evidence of the teleportation of matter is a moot point. You can't move the goalpost to something unrealistic and then expect me to be able to provide evidence for your imaginary premise. Please learn to debate properly.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:48:16 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:40:08 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:34:37 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:25:54 PM

to neimoka, this form of teleportation is, in my view, fairly different, but you are ignoring how matter is being teleported. information is all that needs to be transmitted, as it means the matter at the far end takes on the necessary properties.

Yes but I don't see 'transmitting qbuits and reassembling' type of teleportation doing what is required here, you'd have a massive object crossing the horizon between earth's 'planes' and that matter would have to go somewhere on the originating side and end up somewhere - presumably to the side it's travelling to, or new the matter would have to be conjured up from somewhere on that side that could then take the form of the object... something along those lines. Anyway, I was just asking for a source.

the source has been given, you've rejected it.
as i said, i don't accept that form of teleportation, but it's possible. if you believe in air, that would supply matter that can be altered to gain the properties of the matter (which would become air in the reverse of the process).

A google search was the source? Vaux said that matter can be teleported, his search was about teleportation of information.

If you (or vaux) are saying that an object turns into air when it leaves one side of the disk and rematerialises as rearranged air molecules on the other side... uh, I guess you can say that, if you really want to. I imagine there would be detectable side effects though, a large volume of air would be needed to get the protons for say a person or an aircraft.

you know what a google search does, right? you quoted several examples.

Well since you discovered that I have quoted several, what do you think?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 11, 2015, 02:48:16 PM

read the articles you're quoting. information was teleported in such a way that it was imparted onto molecules at the other end. that is functionally teleportation.
the volume of air would not be huge, and would be compensated for when natural air goes through, if you believe in that.

as i have also said, this is not the proposal i accept.

I very specifically asked about teleportation of matter. The sources given were about teleportation of information.

that either means your question was a meaningless one, or you are again proving illiterate.
again, the information transmitted essentially turned matter at the far end into the matter at the first end. i would call that, functionally, teleportation of matter. if it doesn't match your requirements, it's your requirements that are at fault here.

the volume of air would not be huge, and would be compensated for when natural air goes through, if you believe in that.

as i have also said, this is not the proposal i accept.

To obtain the amount of matter from the atmosphere needed just to construct a person, you'd need about >50 cubic meters or air - not exactly a small volume. Not to argue about this, just pointing that out.

edit - invalid numbers

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 02:59:01 PM

I very specifically asked about teleportation of matter. The sources given were about teleportation of information.

You asked, yes. But so what? I never made the claim that you're claiming I made, so your plea for evidence of the teleportation of matter is a moot point. You can't move the goalpost to something unrealistic and then expect me to be able to provide evidence for your imaginary premise. Please learn to debate properly.

If you never made the claim then why were you trying to supply sources for it in the first place - knowing that they were not valid for the question asked - instead of pointing out my error if that was the case, was the point. You might remember that I came here to ask if there was a source, not to debate.

If you never made the claim then why were you trying to supply sources for it in the first place - knowing that they were not valid for the question asked - instead of pointing out my error if that was the case, was the point. You might remember that I came here to ask if there was a source, not to debate.

No. I was giving you sources for my original contention which I assumed is what you meant. Once again, my original contention was: "small scale teleportation has been achieved in labs".

You have misread this entire discussion. There's no shame in admitting this. I admit I am wrong all the time. It's just part of life.

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 03:16:30 PM

If you never made the claim then why were you trying to supply sources for it in the first place - knowing that they were not valid for the question asked - instead of pointing out my error if that was the case, was the point. You might remember that I came here to ask if there was a source, not to debate.

No. I was giving you sources for my original contention which I assumed is what you meant. Once again, my original contention was: "small scale teleportation has been achieved in labs".

You have misread this entire discussion. There's no shame in admitting this. I admit I am wrong all the time. It's just part of life.

So now I'm wrong because you misunderstood the question? 

So now I'm wrong because you misunderstood the question? 

How did you come to this conclusion? Who's the one twisting things around now?

You've been wrong this whole time because you misunderstood my contention and demanded evidence for something that I never claimed. That's all I'll say on the matter. This case is closed. You're a moron.

If thinking so makes you happy. I'm not the one saying atoms don't exist while they can be teleported.

I believe all matter was originally aetheric in nature: that was how the world we see was produced from the big bang. when we near the extreme concentration of aether at the side of the world, we revert to our original state, and are carried on the currents of aether along and through the world. once we leave the concentration, we're matter again.

I see this whack-job is still using his "aether" as his flat earth "god of the gaps" LOL.

And still zero evidence that aether (as he uses the term) actually exists.  Which of course makes every one of his subsequent pseudo-scientific  arguments a classic non sequitur.  It's actually a waste of time debating with the guy, as his entire knowledge [sic] of science could be written on a postage stamp... in a 10-point font.

   

If thinking so makes you happy. I'm not the one saying atoms don't exist while they can be teleported.

Irrelevant.

Ya, I think it is quite probable that ether holds us to our earth. I don't think our earth is moving 9.8 sec. 
I think Jrowe could be correct  "I believe all matter was originally aetheric in nature"  so maybe matter can also revert back to ether.  There certainly seems to be some cutting edge science on this website.

Ya, I think it is quite probable that ether holds us to our earth. I don't think our earth is moving 9.8 sec. 
I think Jrowe could be correct  "I believe all matter was originally aetheric in nature"  so maybe matter can also revert back to ether.  There certainly seems to be some cutting edge science on this website.

He doesn't even have a proof for aether.

Ya, I think it is quite probable that ether holds us to our earth. I don't think our earth is moving 9.8 sec. 
I think Jrowe could be correct  "I believe all matter was originally aetheric in nature"  so maybe matter can also revert back to ether.  There certainly seems to be some cutting edge science on this website.

I did not want to talk on Jrowe's model until I was sure he was back, but Before you go saying something like that, lets back up a moment here.

First "evidence" of a flat Earth was it looks flat  -- Pretty easily explainable by understanding the size of the Earth and your relative size to it, it will in fact look flat from our perspective.

Second "evidence" of flat Earth was the trigonometry using the shadows of sticks measured very far apart measuring the size of the Round Earth could also be used for a flat Earth with a sun about 3000 miles above it.  --  The current model of the FE proponents, and these are the only two options for that mathematical calculation which has been done thousands upon thousands of times (I'm assuming of course since I did it 3 times in high school(using telephone and another high school across the country) and once in a college physics USM class in conjunction with a class at UNC).

Third "evidence" of a flat Earth was that gravity could be explained by UA -- You can measure the acceleration of things acted upon be gravity and the only other explanation would be the Flat Earth model of the Earth accelerating upwards.  Now if you are saying aether has an attractive force and the more of it that you have clumped into one place then higher the attractive force is, you are basically describing matter and its gravitational properties. 

So are you saying its gravity, but not wanting to use the term?  If we want to use aether in place of matter and gravity, then ok.   Because aether attracts to itself and the more aether you gather into one place the more attractive force adds up, then with a sufficient enough amount of aether its attractive force will pull towards itself somewhat equally.  This will pull the aether into a ball with the center of the ball of aether under a great deal of pressure.  It will in fact form a ball of aether due to its attractive nature.
Also Jrowe's model requires a bump in the middle of each side of the disc with the highest point being the poles.  He will keep having to raise this bump to explain the path of the sun in the sky until he gets pretty close to a ball. **edit**  Jrowe changed the theory before I posted this to 2 suns mirrored by the aether, still haven't looked into this new one yet.

There certainly seems to be some cutting edge science on this website.

I can only agree:  And spherical earth exponents post most of it, whilst flat earth proponents post most of the pseudoscience.