Jack Sarfatti shared a link.
From: JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: John Cramer's alleged claim on retrocausal signaling & Anton Zeilinger
Date: November 26, 2013 at 9:14:30 AM PST
To: James Woodward Woodward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, John Cramer <cramer@phys.washington.edu>
If true, this fits in with my Stargate book's main theme.
https://www.academia.edu/5203735/Sarfattis_Stargate_Book_Version_of_Nov_24_2013_Work_in_Progress_
Can you provide some details please so I can cite it?
On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:45 AM, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. wrote:
On the good news front, though, I can report that John thinks he's found a way around the no signaling argument that Anton Zeilinger laid on him at the end of September. So the possibility of retrocausal signaling is back on the table.
Subject: John Cramer's alleged claim on retrocausal signaling & Anton Zeilinger
Date: November 26, 2013 at 9:14:30 AM PST
To: James Woodward Woodward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, John Cramer <cramer@phys.washington.edu>
If true, this fits in with my Stargate book's main theme.
https://www.academia.edu/5203735/Sarfattis_Stargate_Book_Version_of_Nov_24_2013_Work_in_Progress_
Can you provide some details please so I can cite it?
On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:45 AM, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. wrote:
On the good news front, though, I can report that John thinks he's found a way around the no signaling argument that Anton Zeilinger laid on him at the end of September. So the possibility of retrocausal signaling is back on the table.
