From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy


Can we talk about witchcraft here? Notably those related to stars, the
Moon and the Sun.
--

@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

On 6/13/26 04:17, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Can we talk about witchcraft here? Notably those related to stars, the
Moon and the Sun.

Greetings, and Good Day to you.
There is no moderator here.
So, no one can stop you.
It would seem there are only about a half dozen people that
would ever post here (for good or bad).
So, probably, you will get very few to either criticize
or complement your thoughts.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

On 6/13/2026 9:27 PM, a425couple wrote:

Greetings, and Good Day to you.
There is no moderator here.
So, no one can stop you.
It would seem there are only about a half dozen people that
would ever post here (for good or bad).
So, probably, you will get very few to either criticize
or complement your thoughts.

Astronomy comes from astrology, right?

Thank you for the friendly reminder.
But, I will keep trying. I don't quit
hunting for answers. :)

Thank you for the friendly reminder,
Master Honor!!!
--

@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Can we talk about witchcraft here?

Please don't.

Notably those related to stars, the Moon and the Sun.

Maybe some interpretations of it. Witchcraft is neither scientific nor real. --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Can we talk about witchcraft here?

Please don't.

Notably those related to stars, the Moon and the Sun.

Maybe some interpretations of it. Witchcraft is neither scientific nor real.

Yea. Science is about stuff like:

- if 2 things were ever in contact then they can influence each
other no matter how far apart in time or space they are;

- things pop into and out of existence all the time without reason;

- if you can't jump over a 20 foot fence the first time, keep trying;
it will happen eventually;

- if you manipulate this circuit in the right way then a process
that is normally only going to happen once in the lifetime of the
universe will become more than likely in the next 10 seconds.

Yep. No relation to magic. :)
--
The first 2 rules of Science Club are:
1. Science isnt about science and vice versa.
2. Reality isnt that real.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

- if 2 things were ever in contact then they can influence each
other no matter how far apart in time or space they are;

Two entangled quantum systems are actually not two things,
but one single quantum system. That's what entanglement is
all about - you can't meaningfully separate it into two systems
(formally, into a /sum/). The thing is, that such a system
can be spatially extended, and in fact, within such a system
certain information is transferred faster-than-light because
in an abstract sense that whole system is just a point while
in standard space it extends over an extended region.

The transfer of information with a speed faster than the speed
of light might seem like magic to those who have learned special
relativity, but to traditional Newtonian physicist it actually
would not be magic at all, because they do not have the speed of
light as a limit in the first place.

- things pop into and out of existence all the time without reason;

This is from a common /popularization/ of quantum field theory,
but it is not what quantum field theory actually says.

|One often also hears that the 1/2 quanta "pop" in and out of
|the vacuum effervescently in particle/antiparticle pairs.
|I submit that this is a heuristic, at best, representation
|for the popular media. According to (3-55), there is no
|"popping", no evanescent physical reality alternated with
|nothingness, no pairing of particles at a creation event
|followed by a common mutual destruction
"Student Friendly Quantum Field Theory" (2015) - Robert D. Klauber

- if you can't jump over a 20 foot fence the first time, keep trying;
it will happen eventually;

In reality, quantum systems can indeed "tunnel" through a barrier
with some small probability, but this does not apply to humans.

It should actually be possible to view a human as a quantum
system, but then the tunneling probability is so small that
it is effectively impossible.

Yep. No relation to magic. :)

There is still enough magic:

- Why is there something at all rather than nothing?

- Why does the universe have the known rules and parameters
and not other rules and other parameters?

- How does the subjective experience of consciousness with
all its qualia come about?

I think this magic being everywhere you look is so obvious
that I am remembered of Orson Welles' who said:

|Do you believe in magic? Well, you do believe your eyes, don't you?
Orson Welles.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:

all about - you can't meaningfully separate it into two systems
(formally, into a /sum/).

I was thinking about a different kind of "sum" when I wrote
the above (a sum in the Hamiltonian). So, let me clarify:

An example of an entangled state is,

x |B0> + |A1> x |B1>.

It /is/ written as a sum.

Being entangled means that the state cannot be written as a
single tensor product formed like

U x V.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:

- Why is there something at all rather than nothing?

The original quotation:

|Warum ist |+berhaupt etwas? Warum ist nicht Nichts?
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling: Einleitung in die Philosophie
der Offenbarung, Vorlesung gehalten ab 1841-11-15.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

- if you can't jump over a 20 foot fence the first time, keep trying;
it will happen eventually;

| In reality, quantum systems can indeed "tunnel" through a barrier
| with some small probability, but this does not apply to humans.
| It should actually be possible to view a human as a quantum
| system, but then the tunneling probability is so small that
| it is effectively impossible.


What about probability amplification? The so-called "Santa Claus" effect.

You can't rule out that some manipulation can optimize a given probability
to some respectable value.
But in any even a 1 in 10^5000 chance can happen in the next hour.
Otherwise the prob would be 0.

One of the nice demos I've done for community groups is the old
3 polaroid trick. In case this is new I'll `splain.
We're all familiar -- we think -- with that wonder material of the 1950s; Polaroid.

It's said to block out aorund 1/2 the light because it only lets waves
that are polarisied in a compatible way with the material.
If a light wave is polarized the wrong way it can be highly attenuated.
The right way it passes with little weakening.
Randomly, maybe 1/2 gets through.

Now take 2 polaroid sheets in parallel and pass light through both.
Twist one so as much of the light is cut off as possible.
We have one piece of polaroid at 90 deg to the other.
What does get through one sheet is blocked by the other.
So no light can get through. We think. :)

But put a 3rd piece in between the other 2 and twist.
If we understand this right nothing should happen. The outer 2 pieces
are at right angles. Nothing should get through.

But surprise, at an angle 45 deg to the other sheets light starts to
get through again.

We can see quantum physics with our unaided eyes.
Some kind of amplification must be happening... :)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

What about probability amplification? The so-called "Santa Claus" effect.

Although it's called "probability amplification", it cannot
really be used to make something arbitrary with a very small
probability more probable.

You can't rule out that some manipulation can optimize a given probability >to some respectable value.

Yes, I do rule this out.

But in any even a 1 in 10^5000 chance can happen in the next hour.

Statistically, there is a non-zero probability that all
the air molecules in your room will randomly rush into one
corner, leaving you to suffocate in a vacuum. It's safe to
assume that this will never happen!

One of the nice demos I've done for community groups is the old
3 polaroid trick.

This is really a nice demo!

References: <qualia-20260908102931@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> ><117n354$1l94m$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> ><110je7k$2sp58$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> ><117nlo2$23m6$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com

You responded to "<qualia-20260908102931@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>",
I think. So your newsreader "tin" should have added that to
the /end/ of the "References:" header, not its beginning.
- I tried to repair it a bit here in my own "References:" header.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

What about probability amplification? The so-called "Santa Claus" effect.

Although it's called "probability amplification", it cannot
really be used to make something arbitrary with a very small
probability more probable.

You can't rule out that some manipulation can optimize a given probability >>to some respectable value.

Yes, I do rule this out.

You dont accept probability amplification -- e.g. Grover Search --
is possible?
The whole idea there is an operator is found that can correctly
reduce amplitude for unwanted states and boost wanted states
(usu a sole wanted state).

I wrote a little paper some time back for work at U Delaware(?) I dubbed "magic search" that was not provably optimal but could amplify
general wavefunctions.

Someone asked if it could ever be implemented and at the time a
few papers were around that claimed any operator should be
decomposable into various universal quantum gates.

I dont see any particular reason such a machine cant operate on
macroscopic objects. The universe does it "all the time". :)

But in any even a 1 in 10^5000 chance can happen in the next hour.

Statistically, there is a non-zero probability that all
the air molecules in your room will randomly rush into one
corner, leaving you to suffocate in a vacuum. It's safe to
assume that this will never happen!

It could happen next second. Who know with the right machinery
it could be made to happen on demand.

An old professor once said something to the effect that modern
science was based on the assumption that everything was pretty much known
which is why it kept stumbling into contradiction.
What was needed was a break from monotone logics like Greek geometry which seems to be pretty much all scientists are exposed to in their education,
and move to non-monotone logics -- a "science of ignorance".
Obviously, it never caught on. :)

One of the nice demos I've done for community groups is the old
3 polaroid trick.

This is really a nice demo!

References: <qualia-20260908102931@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> >><117n354$1l94m$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> >><110je7k$2sp58$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> >><117nlo2$23m6$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com

You responded to "<qualia-20260908102931@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>",
I think. So your newsreader "tin" should have added that to
the /end/ of the "References:" header, not its beginning.
- I tried to repair it a bit here in my own "References:" header.

It's been badly hacked by some group to be news reader for the blind.

I edited the refs line by hand this time and, yes, it had the last msg id first.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

You dont accept probability amplification -- e.g. Grover Search --
is possible?

Grover Search uses probability amplification to find data, but
it cannot alter the real-world likelihood of physical events.

I dont see any particular reason such a machine cant operate on
macroscopic objects. The universe does it "all the time". :)

Something like this might be possible, but today we do not know
how it would exactly work.

An old professor once said something to the effect that modern
science was based on the assumption that everything was pretty much known

That might have been true around 1874 when von Jolly told Planck,

|Physics is a highly developed, nearly fully matured science . . .
|It may yet keep going in one corner or another, scrutinizing
|or putting in order a jot here and a tittle there, but the
|system as a whole is secured, and theoretical physics is
|noticeably approaching its completion.

.

What was needed was a break from monotone logics like Greek geometry which >seems to be pretty much all scientists are exposed to in their education,

The writer in "Stalker" talks about how soul-crushing geometry
can get. People are starving for a way out:

|Writer: Don't hope for flying saucers - that would be far too
|interesting.
|
|Young woman: Not the Bermuda Triangle either? Surely you're
|not going to deny that . . .
|
|Writer: Oh yes, I deny it. Not in the Bermudas, nor anywhere
|else. There is a triangle A-B-C that is congruent with the
|triangle A1-B1-C1. Do you feel how much dreary boredom there
|is in that statement? In the Middle Ages, that was still a
|cause for excitement. Every house had its household spirit.
|Every church had God. People were young then. But today every
|fourth person is an old man. Boring, my dear. That's what
|boredom is.
|
"Stalker", USSR, 1980. Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
|R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

You dont accept probability amplification -- e.g. Grover Search --
is possible?

|Grover Search uses probability amplification to find data, but
|it cannot alter the real-world likelihood of physical events.

Huh? A quantum computer is a physical system and its readouts are
physical events.

I love hearing from people that seem to claim a lot of things are impossible.

It's practically a declaration of surrender. :)
--
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
-- Lord Kelvin, Pres of the Royal Society, 1895.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
|R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

You dont accept probability amplification -- e.g. Grover Search --
is possible?

|Grover Search uses probability amplification to find data, but
|it cannot alter the real-world likelihood of physical events.
Huh? A quantum computer is a physical system and its readouts are
physical events.

Grover Search can accelerate finding an element inside a closed
quantum computer. It use destructive interference to suppress the
"wrong" options and systematically elevate the quantum amplitude
of the target state. But this does not mean we can "amplify" the
probabilities of arbitrary events outside of such a context.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
@R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

From: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
|R Kym Horsell <kym@sdf.org> wrote or quoted:

You dont accept probability amplification -- e.g. Grover Search --
is possible?

|Grover Search uses probability amplification to find data, but
|it cannot alter the real-world likelihood of physical events.
Huh? A quantum computer is a physical system and its readouts are
physical events.

@
@ Grover Search can accelerate finding an element inside a closed
@ quantum computer. It use destructive interference to suppress the
@ "wrong" options and systematically elevate the quantum amplitude
@ of the target state. But this does not mean we can "amplify" the
@ probabilities of arbitrary events outside of such a context.

LOL.

Now you sound like you just heard about this today.

You agree a computer can control a car?

If it was a quantum computer that used a GS to actualize some
wanted state then THAT could potentially drive a car?

So a GS can affect the real world, right?

C'mon. This is how it generally goes.
Increasingly crazy statements to back up the idea that everything is
known, nothing to see here.

Try to break that old alt.group emergency gatekeeper mold.

In the past the guys that seemed to geolocate to Rome (the Inquisition?)
or some AFB at least tended to know when the jig was up.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell wrote:

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Can we talk about witchcraft here?

Please don't.

Notably those related to stars, the Moon and the Sun.

Maybe some interpretations of it. Witchcraft is neither scientific nor real.

Yea. Science is about stuff like:

- if 2 things were ever in contact then they can influence each
other no matter how far apart in time or space they are;

A common misconception about what quantum entanglement is. It is NOT (faster-than-light) communication:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem>

- things pop into and out of existence all the time without reason;

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to /you/."

--Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator

The quantum fluctuations that you are alluding to are real insofar as their effects can be and have been measured. They follow from the uncertainty relation for energy and time, which in turn is a consequence of the
wave-like nature of particles/quantum fields. In fact, they provide a
working explanation as to where the mass of nucleons comes from, as it
mostly (to ca. 99-a%) does NOT come from their valence quarks:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction>

- if you can't jump over a 20 foot fence the first time, keep trying;
it will happen eventually;

I presume that you have another misconception about quantum tunneling there.

- if you manipulate this circuit in the right way then a process
that is normally only going to happen once in the lifetime of the
universe will become more than likely in the next 10 seconds.

To what are you even referring there?

Yep. No relation to magic. :)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic."

--Clark's Third Law

So if you think that the things that you have described here would be magic (and you are misunderstanding many of them to begin with), then you are just too far behind.

Fortunately, nowadays you can easily educate yourself:

My public playlist "Quantum Physics" <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDB2GGhVEb6lQ6ayYAsntEX>

"Pop Culture Scientist" on particle physics and quantum physics (initial video) <https://fb.watch/v/5EoTx8iv_/>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.astronomy

R Kym Horsell wrote:

- if you can't jump over a 20 foot fence the first time, keep trying;
it will happen eventually;

| In reality, quantum systems can indeed "tunnel" through a barrier
| with some small probability, but this does not apply to humans.
| It should actually be possible to view a human as a quantum
| system, but then the tunneling probability is so small that
| it is effectively impossible.

What about probability amplification? The so-called "Santa Claus" effect.

The only '"Santa Claus" effect' that I know of has to do with stock trading around Christmas, and nothing with "probability amplification" or quantum theory.

You can't rule out that some manipulation can optimize a given probability to some respectable value.

You do not know what you are talking about.

[3 polarizing filters can let more light through that 2]

We can see quantum physics with our unaided eyes.

Yes.

Some kind of amplification must be happening... :)

No, it just cannot be understood classically. See my playlist for two explanations for that, with one going in detail through the (rather simple) mathematics of it. (The key concept is that a photon either passes through
a polarizing filter or it does not pass through. So any photons that pass through have the proper polarization, and there is a probability for that.)
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2