As i can remember, the point was when two particles are entangled, they
   bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift their states
   önce either of them is "observed". So you know that the other twin is
   in the same state, but you cannot code it at will, and since you don't
   know its first state without having "observed" it, you cannot determine
   whether the other twin has been observed or not (that would be 1 bit of
   data streaming).
   This is what i remember from what i read years ago, please correct me
   if i'm wrong.
   5:11 AM, August 5, 2016, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:

     On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000
     Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

      On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
      > From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
      > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
      > jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
      >   >  If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then
     some
      >   > information must be being transmitted. If no information is
      > >    being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to
      > > measure
      >   >  speed and the claim makes no sense.
      > Well, that's the problem.  Knowing that SOMETHING is being
      > transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful
      > information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings.  That,
     also
      > is the amazing implications of entangled photons.
      It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled
     photon
      paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the photon at
     the
      other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a minimum of
      10k.c;
      Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of
     entangled
      photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read them, at
      the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so this
      weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other end.
      Read + Not read = 1 bit.
      What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the
     information
      must be transmitted through changing states of a single entangled
      photon
      - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported
      phenomena, use it!

             Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you should be
     able
             to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of
     course
             the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific, absurd
             bullshit)
             I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that Cari
             posted a source claiming
             "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow
             information to be transmitted faster that light. "
             I take that to mean that the authorities don't actually
     agree,
             although perhaps the majority says : no.
             Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster than
             light speed, then it should be possible to send information
             using that AND there would be nothing absurd about that,
             contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo
             cientific 'interpretations'.
             http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t
             "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue"
             It should be self-evident that absurdities have no place in
             science or even in philosophy.

      What are we missing here?

   --
   You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are
   nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a stranger.