You remember the video I made about the gravitron of the earth direction?
And how it can match even with the "systemic gravitron" ...?
And .. you do recall all the assertions made (by the "established kairos elites", the "only legit quantum 7" etc.)...
about how "h is insignificant, i is unreal?"
Update on all that!
I was just solving a question today (for money.... :o ), that I stumbled across the exact meaning of "entanglement", about how i = Q, h = P (or i = P, h = Q) is possible (real, significant), i.e. a stable earthlings' gravitron that can help earthlings break on through to the other side, past the middlemen siege.
(It exploits the strong Q/17 (as in Quora symbol, Q ) red CT and the "P" (Cain CT), so it involves Q and P).
So here is the question:
And here is the answer I wrote, about how the "classical (quantum) assumption" is wrong,
... there's no strict requirement of "instruction sets", and thus the i = 9 pairs cannot be "ruled out"..
Answer:
According to the classical assumption:
The four possible types of particles mentioned in C, are the ones that give the following test outcomes:
P ...... A: 1 B: 1
Q ...... A: 1 B: -1
R ...... A: -1 B: 1
S ...... A: -1 B: -1
The 16 possible pairings in the 2 particle system, are:
Particle
12
PP
PQ
PR
PS
QP
QQ
QR
QS
RP
RQ
RR
RS
SP
SQ
SR
SS
However, experimental result show that Q (where B = -1) and S (where B = -1) do not occur together.
Because (4) holds:
prob (B(1) = -1) /\ (AND) prob (B(2) = -1 .... is 0.
Thus we can rule out
QS
SQ
Because
B(1) = -1 if particle 1 is Q or S
B(2) = -1 if particle 2 is Q or S
Similarly, from (3), B(1) = 1 /\ A(2) = 1 is not observed in the experiment results, it has zero probability. Thus we can rule out
PP
RP
PQ
RQ
Because
B(1) = 1 if particle 1 is P or R
A(2) = 1 if particle 2 is P or Q
Similarly, from (2), A(1) = 1 /\ B(2) = 1 is not observed in the experiment results, it has zero probability. Thus we can rule out
PP
PR
QP
QR
Because
A(1) = 1 if particle 1 is P or Q
B(2) = 1 if particle 2 is P or R
So according to the classical assumption C, we can rule out 9 pairs, namely:
QS
SQ
PP
RP
PQ
RQ
PR
QP
QR
But the first experimental result says, prob (A(1) = 1) /\ (A(2) = 1 has a greater than 0 probability.
A(1) = 1 if particle 1 is P or Q
A(2) = 1 if particle 2 is P or Q
This is satisfied by only 2 pairs: PQ and QP
However, both PQ and QP belong to the 9 pairs which are "ruled out" by the classical assumption C, thus should have 0 probability; but (1) holds PQ and QP are observed, thus C is logically inconsistent with observed results.
Thus!
... there's no strict requirement of "instruction sets", and thus the i = 9 pairs cannot be "ruled out" (at least 2, QP and PQ, so this makes the 2 forms of twin flames, out of which the sky girl, earth male type is rarer but more solid! ).
Oh by the way, the trend on the last post continues :)
See the "16 types of pairs" above.... so are there "some 16 quantum pairs"? I mean a coincidence, 16 before her...
Comments
Post a Comment