Best Way To Start A Flooded Engine 1998v70 (with slight diversion to quantum mechanics , relativity, dark matter states,

[MrAl]

And so on page 5 the thread comes full circle: start (probably) the flooded engine with spooky action at a distance. Get a working ECT in there.

But don't stop now!

Oh sorry, i thought i mentioned already that i got a new ECT and new battery. Everything is back to normal now (i think). Engine starts ok again and cooling fan does not run after the engine is shut off.
What a pain that ECT can be, wow. I probably should have gotten a new battery for the winter anyway, that is if we actually have a winter this year. Temperatures been pretty high so far. January predictions are also a little high right now.

[MrAl]

You can pop your hood open with action at a distance if you lose your remote.

Interesting timing. When i went out to wash the car Saturday i saw a neighbors car start up with nobody in it. They had a remote starter. Strange to see that happen though when you are not expecting it.

Hi,

Yeah i an hoping that doesnt happen ha ha. But i did get a lot of ideas here on what to do about it and some preventive maintenance. Those hood latches bothered me for a long time now, and cant believe i had this car for something like 7 years now, wow, the time goes fast.
Never got my high current direct to battery cable in yet through, but started thinking about it again since i was dealing with the fuses. Hey that remines me, didnt you say you had some fuses
I did this on my old Hyundai and it was nice to have such a heavy duty line to hook up too from inside the cabin.

[RickHaleParker]

The way i understand it is if you force an entangled particle into a particular state, you break the entanglement meaning it cant be used for communications.

That is what many are saying. Then again, it was not too long ago many where saying the information exchange between entangled particle could not be FTL. One would not need to force a state. If one could influence the 50/50 randomness one could read a bit of data on the other end with sampling. How to do that .... ?

[abscate]

If I bring tachyons into this thread, Ill be lynched.

I was at CERN in 2011 when they thought they saw one, but it turned out to be a VOlvo 850 speedoemter gear in their instruments.

[RickHaleParker]

If I bring tachyons into this thread, Ill be lynched.

Not if you have the imaginary mass to back it up.

[MrAl]

If I bring tachyons into this thread, Ill be lynched.

I was at CERN in 2011 when they thought they saw one, but it turned out to be a VOlvo 850 speedoemter gear in their instruments.

That's funny, i cant find any place on the map of the world they call "Tachy" so dont know where Tachyons come from.

But funny you should bring this up at this time, because just recently scientists actually discovered an actual real life Alcubierre Drive in the lab. Now how they did that by accident i dont know but this is for real. However, like most of these expeiments, it is with particles not full bodied items like dogs, cats, monkeys, or even a salt shaker. That's still probably way off, and may never happen because from what i understand there side effects such as a huge amount of energy given off by the craft enought to wreck other space objects.

But one thing has always puzzeled me. When we embark on a trip, say to another state, we start the car, pull out, and drive down the road having a good idea where we are going, and if anything gets in our way, we simply stop the car momentarily. But if you are going 200 times the speed of light, how do you see anything in front of you that might be in the way, and how do you know where you are going to end up when you do stop. You might end up at the event horizon of a black hole, get absorbed, and never to be seen aor heard of gain in this universe.
I also wonder how we would test this first. I would suggest using crash test dummies (ha ha) but then how do we observe if they made it there ok or not.

There are a lot of advances i do like though in quantum world. I especially like the idea of quantum sensors. I dont know how expensive they will be though that remains to be found out.

Also on the forfront of science now is the art of "splitting quanta". This is pretty amazing and throws a wrnech into the idea of a quanta itself. If it is quanta, how can it be split intoi two halves. That voids the concept of that 'particle' being a quanta in the first place.
My idea of a quanta, until now, has been that a quanta is something that can not be divided and so it appears as something that can never be destroyed. However, in quantum field theory it is the minumum vibration frequency of a quantum field, so i guess that leaves the door open.
So apparently, we have a LOT to learn yet about the really tiny stuff and the really big stuff.

[MrAl]

The way i understand it is if you force an entangled particle into a particular state, you break the entanglement meaning it cant be used for communications.

That is what many are saying. Then again, it was not too long ago many where saying the information exchange between entangled particle could not be FTL. One would not need to force a state. If one could influence the 50/50 randomness one could read a bit of data on the other end with sampling. How to do that .... ?

Yeah i know what you mean. One scientist a long time ago told me that it is likely that "anything is possible" we just have to learn how to do it, make it happen. At first i feel that a given idea may take too much energy to accomplish or some other limiting factor. IF we dont have enough energy for something, we cant do it, or can we? Perhaps it depends how we limit our thoughts. If there isnt enough energy in this universe, it is possible to import more from some other universe? Right now we dont know.

What i like to say about these questions is that we have not yet imagined what we need to imagine in order to imagine one more step beyond what we have not yet imagined. Sounds funny, but that's how it works. If we didnt know about the atom yet we would not be able to develop nuclear energy, for one example.

Ok i guess it is time to go back to the real world. Ordered some car wax for the beast outside

[Sveedy]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... P8WjL51opZ

[abscate]

You quantize stuff in physics so that you can explain stuff. There is no guarantee that you chose the “ right” quantum numbers so if you find a phenomenon that needs it, you split the states again.

In NMR, you actually create the states by placing the item in a strong magnetic field. While we walk around , all of our water in our bodies doesn’t have the spectroscopic states that we use to image in a hospital.

Popped Into a magnet and they all suddenly have states that create the images.

[RickHaleParker]

But if you are going 200 times the speed of light, how do you see anything in front of you that might be in the way, and how do you know where you are going to end up when you do stop. You might end up at the event horizon of a black hole, get absorbed, and never to be seen or heard of gain in this universe.

You will still be encountering light but it will be blue shifted by a factor of 200 C. Calibrate your Viewscreen to compensate for the Doppler shift. It might be better to Calibrate your Viewscreen to view your environment in infrared. There is a lot more information in the infrared region of the spectrum. If we get this far into the future the Viewscreens will probably be wideband, false color so we can see the information across the whole spectrum.

A feeding black hole is not a problem you would see the light from the accretion disk. A non-feeding Black hole would induce Gravitational lensing on your Viewscreen.

The rogue planets that have been ejected from all the solar systems that have formed and gone before might be a bigger concern then a Black hole because they have no emittance and insufficient gravity for lensing.