The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:

rath wrote:Again distance means nothing.

Don't be stupid.

It's a fact .... are you really that blind.


Again ........ your the one who thinks distance means something ...... Back up your claim with facts ... As i did.

rath wrote:It's a fact .... are you really that blind.


Again ........ your the one who thinks distance means nothing ...... Back up your claim with facts ... As i did.

"your" eh?

"Your the one who thinks distance means nothing"?? Have you not been listening? Distance is everything. 143 km compared to "a short distance" (as your article said) is a huge difference. If we can send information to a satellite then we can send it around the globe. The Australians back in 2002 couldn't do that.

at1with0 wrote:"Your the one who thinks distance means nothing"?? Have you not been listening? Distance is everything. 143 km compared to "a short distance" (as your article said) is a huge difference. If we can send information to a satellite then we can send it around the globe. The Australians back in 2002 couldn't do that.

No ..... see, i knew you didn't know what you were talking about.

Wrong ... Wrong ... Wrong.



Like i said ....... you don't know what your talking about.

It's the device that allows the information to be sent from one place to another .... So thus far it does not matter weather the USA team failed to send the information further than the Australian & Japanese team back in 2011, but further than the Australian team back in 2002 .... because the technology has not reached it's limitations yet.

It's the device that allows something to be transported. Regardless of location & the limitations have nothing to do with distance,




distance means nothing at this point of the science.

The device that allows the objects to be transported, does not factor in distance because distance is irrelevant.

if you can send it a meter ..... you can send it further.

& as of yet .... you still fail to explain what you think the US team did to change the Australian technology, so as to allow something to be sent further............ you cant explain it, because they did nothing.

Distance is not the issue ...... it is the complexity of the object being sent, that is the issue here

Sending a beam of light regardless of distance ...... is a lot easier, & less complex than sending say a human or a truck, or any other multiple organic or molecular object.



Are you getting it yet .... ?????

It's the object at either end that send & receive the information ..... & moving the objects further apart does not change their function.

The devices at either end do what they were built to do only limited by the size & complexity of the object or objects being transmitted.


Another Example ....... somebody buys a car ....

person one fills the tank with gas & speeds down the highway. lets say 50 kilometers or 30 miles down the road.
& still with an almost full tank of gas. Then come back & went wow, i just drove faster than any person has ever gone before. ( it's a world record )

Person two buys the same car fills the tank with gas. & drives it a the legal speed limit until it runs out of gas.
Comes back & goes i just drove 450 kilometers or 220 odd miles, on a single tank of gas.

Point of argument.

person two .... ( in our case the Europeans ) have proved nothing, by driving further than person one, they failed to prove anything. They didn't travel faster than person one. they may have traveled further .... but that means nothing as the car would have gone that distance anyway given the size & capacity of the gas tank in the car to start with.

They merely proved the car could do what it was built to do already.


Just because person one choose to travel a shorter distance at a faster speed ... did not mean they person one could not have driven further had he chosen too.

just because the Australian back in 2002 choose not to send the info/beam of light further than they did does not mean they could not have.

As the experiment was not testing distance.

the Australian & Japanese team did that in 2011.

Long before the Americans/Europeans copied them years latter ( 2012 )

Like i said ..... What did the European/American team ( of 2012 ) do to make the technology different & thus allow them to send information further than anybody else.....


Nothing

They did nothing ......

So what happens when another team moves the device 144 kilometers apart and sends a beam of light / info 1 whole kilometer ( half a mile ) further than this European / American team did ( 2012 )

[size=200]Answer ......

NOTHING.

at1with0 wrote:Your the one who thinks distance means nothing"?? Have you not been listening? Distance is everything. 143 km compared to "a short distance" (as your article said) is a huge difference. If we can send information to a satellite then we can send it around the globe. The Australians back in 2002 couldn't do that.

Again .... distance means nothing..... the smaller/ less complex the information the the better the transmission & replication at the other end.

Distance is the least important factor ...... far less important than size & complexity of the object being sent.


So when you get an clue.

Feel free to tell us all ....... just what did the European / American team do, that allowed them to send information further.

What changes did they do that was so very different from what the Australian teams did in either 2002 or 2011.

What changers / modification / inventions / new theories ..... did the 2012 American team make, just last month. When they made their over blown claims to a world first.


please tell us all what they did that was different or new to what the Australian's have been doing for over the last 10 years.

THIS

Scientists teleport Schrodinger's cat

Fri Apr 15, 2011

Researchers from Australia and Japan have successfully teleported wave packets of light, potentially revolutionising quantum communications and computing.

The team, led by researchers at the University of Tokyo, say this is the first-ever teleportation, or transfer, of a particular complex set of quantum information from one point to another.

rath wrote:LINK:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-15/s ... at/2614780

PLUS

This

Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:13 pm

Australian engineers write quantum computer 'qubit' in global breakthrough.

australian-breakthrough-brings-quantum-computing-closer-t7946.html


Is a whole lot more Important & relevant

Than This


Just a few days after Chinese researchers reported successfully teleporting photons over the course of 97 kilometers, researchers affiliated with the Austrian Academy of Sciences and other European organizations have announced a successful quantum teleportation between two Canary Islands – at a distance over 143 km (a little over 88 miles).

After reading this back and forth argument, At1with0 seems to be the only knowlegable on technically about how this all works. Especially with his math background. Rath maybe you can learn something from him. All the big print, and yelling at him, no wonder you can't get along with anyone.

greeney2 wrote:All the big print, and yelling at him, no wonder you can't get along with anyone.

YOU ARE CORRECT, BIG PRINT AND CALL CAPS DO NOT A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT MAKE BETTER WATCH IT GREENEY RATH IS GONNA BIG PRINT AND COLOR AT YOU NOW

Rath seems to be Australia-centered and all facts must support the superiority of Australia. Therefore, he has decided that the Australian team from 2002 has NOT been improved upon by the American team in 2012. The difference is if you read Rath's article, it says they sent information (not light) a "short distance," whereas in the recent team's work, they sent information 143 km which is, so the article says, enough to reach a satellite.

Being able to reach a satellite basically is really close to being able to send it anywhere in the world using multiple satellites networked together. So I can send information to China by bouncing it off a satellite or two within the 143 km range.

The Australian team, according to Rath's article, sent information "a short distance" and that is not enough to reach a satellite and therefore not enough to reach China. Rath said somewhere that just because they only sent it a short distance, that doesn't mean they were not capable of sending it farther. And I agree with that. Maybe they could have sent information 143 km in 2002 but they didn't and so the bottom line is that the recent experiment accomplished more.

The nature of the information is also important. From the two articles I don't recall the amount of info being sent in 2012 being any more info that was sent in 2002 by the Australians.

I don't care where these teams were located. The only reason Rath cares is that Australians were involved. If the two teams were in Germany and Russia, for example, I doubt he would even be participating in this thread.

at1with0 wrote:

greeney2 wrote:All the big print, and yelling at him, no wonder you can't get along with anyone.

YOU ARE CORRECT, BIG PRINT AND CALL CAPS DO NOT A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT MAKE BETTER WATCH IT GREENEY RATH IS GONNA BIG PRINT AND COLOR AT YOU NOW

Rath seems to be Australia-centered and all facts must support the superiority of Australia. Therefore, he has decided that the Australian team from 2002 has NOT been improved upon by the American team in 2012. The difference is if you read Rath's article, it says they sent information (not light) a "short distance," whereas in the recent team's work, they sent information 143 km which is, so the article says, enough to reach a satellite.

Being able to reach a satellite basically is really close to being able to send it anywhere in the world using multiple satellites networked together. So I can send information to China by bouncing it off a satellite or two within the 143 km range.

The Australian team, according to Rath's article, sent information "a short distance" and that is not enough to reach a satellite and therefore not enough to reach China. Rath said somewhere that just because they only sent it a short distance, that doesn't mean they were not capable of sending it farther. And I agree with that. Maybe they could have sent information 143 km in 2002 but they didn't and so the bottom line is that the recent experiment accomplished more.

The nature of the information is also important. From the two articles I don't recall the amount of info being sent in 2012 being any more info that was sent in 2002 by the Australians.

I don't care where these teams were located. The only reason Rath cares is that Australians were involved. If the two teams were in Germany and Russia, for example, I doubt he would even be participating in this thread.

Allow me to translate into Australian: America! F*** yeah!

America..........Another thing that isn't a panacea.

greeney2 wrote:After reading this back and forth argument, At1with0 seems to be the only knowlegable on technically about how this all works. Especially with his math background.

Then why is he so stupid ........


if he has a math background ( what ever you think that means ) then why what he answer even the most basic of questions i put to him.

at1with0 wrote:Rath seems to be Australia-centered and all facts must support the superiority of Australia. Therefore, he has decided that the Australian team from 2002 has NOT been improved upon by the American team in 2012. The difference is if you read Rath's article, it says they sent information (not light) a "short distance," whereas in the recent team's work, they sent information 143 km which is, so the article says, enough to reach a satellite.

The Australian team, according to Rath's article, sent information "a short distance" and that is not enough to reach a satellite and therefore not enough to reach China. Rath said somewhere that just because they only sent it a short distance, that doesn't mean they were not capable of sending it farther. And I agree with that. Maybe they could have sent information 143 km in 2002 but they didn't and so the bottom line is that the recent experiment accomplished more.


I don't care where these teams were located. The only reason Rath cares is that Australians were involved. If the two teams were in Germany and Russia, for example, I doubt he would even be participating in this thread.

You claim that im only interested in this because an Australian team is involved.

A. i posted this topic 10 years before you & i note ... you had little to say about the story back then ( maybe because no Eurpean or American was involed )


b. the story is ground breaking & i cant help it if the Europeans & Americans are 50 years behind the Australians.

c. Why have you just now turtned your entire argument around from where you started .... maybe you should go back & read your posts before you look even more silly than you already do. ( get your story straight son )

& as of yet .... you still fail to explain what you think the US team did to change the Australian technology, so as to allow something to be sent further............ you cant explain it, because they did nothing.

Distance is not the issue ...... it is the complexity of the object being sent, that is the issue here

Sending a beam of light regardless of distance ...... is a lot easier, & less complex than sending say a human or a truck, or any other multiple organic or molecular object.

If you had any sort of math background

A. you would know that i am right.

&

B. you would not find it so hard to answer a simple question.