On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible
On 17-Nov-2014, at 3:54 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Russell,
I try to be polite and smooth in my communications not only with you. Here a
question emerges in my mind: how diffrent is your perception of the MV (and
the arising of such VERY human connotations) from the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13,
On 19 Nov 2014, at 16:44, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014, at 16:44, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19
On 11/19/2014 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would think the obvious way to parse what Bruno has said here is science
cannot show that something is correct.
Is that right, Bruno?
Yes.
Of course empirical tests are better at showing a theory is wrong than
showing
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything. Which is why
science seeks to test correctness prior to explanatory power.
Ideally, or FAPP,
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything. Which is why science seeks to
test correctness
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
And if it isn't correct it doesn't
On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible
On 16 Nov 2014, at 15:12, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:08:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 05:06, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC,
On 16 Nov 2014, at 22:44, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:42:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:18, Russell Standish wrote:
I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent to
conservation of information, or in other words if something can
On 16 Nov 2014, at 22:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500,
On 17 Nov 2014, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri,
On 16 Nov 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Russell,
I try to be polite and smooth in my communications not only with
you. Here a question emerges in my mind: how diffrent is your
perception of the MV (and the arising of such VERY human
connotations) from the concept of 'GOD in
On 17 Nov 2014, at 01:07, LizR wrote:
Isn't that the sort of thing religious people often say? They try to
use their language applied to science.
You believe in evolution, I believe in the Bible. What's the
difference?
The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct) consciousness
On 11/17/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Nov 2014, at 04:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell
On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything. Which is why science seeks to test
correctness prior to explanatory power.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:25:47AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 22:44, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:42:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:18, Russell Standish wrote:
I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent
On 16 Nov 2014, at 05:06, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 14,
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:18, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster
than the
speed of light. However, even in single
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:14, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the
universe
is not
Your
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:34, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:55:04PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of
the singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.
Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:08:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Nov 2014, at 05:06, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:42:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:18, Russell Standish wrote:
I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent to
conservation of information, or in other words if something can
happen, it will happen, somewhere in the
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time
Dear Russell,
I try to be polite and smooth in my communications not only with you. Here
a question emerges in my mind: how diffrent is your perception of the MV
(and the arising of such VERY human connotations) from the concept of 'GOD
in religious minds?
Is the Schroedinger equation stuff
Isn't that the sort of thing religious people often say? They try to use
their language applied to science.
You believe in evolution, I believe in the Bible. What's the difference?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On 11/16/2014 1:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 23:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard
On 11/16/2014 4:07 PM, LizR wrote:
Isn't that the sort of thing religious people often say? They try to use their language
applied to science.
You believe in evolution, I believe in the Bible. What's the difference?
Here's how a guy treats his religion with respect - he challenges it to
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of the
evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the
Hamiltonian is Hermitian.
Or to put it more simply, it you use your theory to
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:35:03PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of
the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the
The Hamiltonian for the process of de
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of the
evolution of
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zib...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information instantly
or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time delay cannot
be detected.
That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light.
However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI requires the creation
of two particles
for every one particle. That doubles the energy requirement.
Considering the total number of particles created in
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information
instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that
time delay cannot be detected.
That
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That doubles
the energy
On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information
instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of
In other words you do not know
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:33 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
the speed of light. However, even in single particle
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words you do not know
That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in other universes,
but there is believe they have always been identical to the laws in our
home universe.
John K Clark
--
You
Correction: I should have said NO reason to believe.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
In other words you do not know
That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in
On Friday, November 14, 2014 8:44:46 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
In other words you do not know
That is correct, I do not know the laws of physics are in other
universes, but there is believe they
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
requires the creation
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
the
speed of
On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
It has been proven that entangled BECs
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:16:58 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 14, 2014 6:55:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 17:19, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:55:04PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thinking on this, I begin to see more clearly the MW picture of
the singlet state. The explanation is not that obvious.
Let me proceed by giving an argument which seems to imply that even
in the many-world, there is a remnant
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
is not
Your point being?
--
Prof Russell Standish Phone
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
is not
Your point being?
Differentiation may not be unitary
--
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
the
On 15 November 2014 11:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible,
True, or so I've been told. I believe the Wheeler-deWitt equation doesn't
include time at all.
The differentiation of the universe is not
It is in principle, otherwise we would
On 11/14/2014 6:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 November 2014 11:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But QM equations are time reversible,
True, or so I've been told. I believe the Wheeler-deWitt equation doesn't include time
at all.
The differentiation
On 03 Nov 2014, at 02:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it
restores determinacy and locality in the 3p big physical
picture. In the MW theory, we can
On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores
determinacy and locality in the 3p big physical picture. In the
MW theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality,
without using anything non
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores
determinacy and locality in the 3p big physical picture. In the MW
theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality, without
On 31 Oct 2014, at 19:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with
energy.
Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie
type of
On 31 Oct 2014, at 20:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with
energy.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
This I find hard to buy. I like the MW notably because it restores
determinacy and locality in the 3p big physical picture. In the MW
theory, we can explain the violation of Bells inequality, without using
anything non local, or instantaneous. I took Aspect experiment
On 30 Oct 2014, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2014 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:12, LizR wrote:
you can delete your posts (I think?)
That is not so easy when a post has been already sent, I think,
unless quantum delayed erasing perhaps (grin), but as
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical
systems (or something similar). If GR is right and spacetime
On 29 Oct 2014, at 21:53, LizR wrote:
On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum
and the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is
granular predict that photons at differing
of infinity' is a better term ;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely,
Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many
infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span
might make sense.
Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke
On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy.
Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type of non local
hidden variable, which seems to me
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy.
Why not particles? But then you are heading
of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.
Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post
by John Clark, and it seems
...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely,
Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many
infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span
might make sense.
Sorry
;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely,
Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many
infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span
might make sense.
Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a
post by John
, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense
On 10/30/2014 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:12, LizR wrote:
you can delete your posts (I think?)
That is not so easy when a post has been already sent, I think, unless quantum delayed
erasing perhaps (grin), but as zibbsay observes, I was not so much quibbling when
On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
Well that WAS the point of my original post...
: D
On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
that Cantor
On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical
systems (or something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a
continuum
, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or
something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum
On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and
the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular
predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing
velocities,
Been there. Done that. Dementia comes from sleep deprivation due to ... too
many details.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and
On 10/29/2014 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical
;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.
Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by
John Clark
...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.
Sorry for quibbling
that WAS the point of my original post...
: D
On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
Well that WAS the point of my original post...
: D
On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:53:36 PM UTC, JohnM wrote:
Brent, these guys are SO smart! They even knew how to convert infinity
into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff.
you made a good insight here, so my thanks that you shared it.
Reading the fuller laid down by
I don't have time to watch the video, but the title seems a bit weird. How
can infinity have a span (span implies finitude, surely?)
With infinity it's more span, span, span, span, span, span, span, span ...
span, wonderful span!
Maybe someone can summarise for me?
--
You received this message
Dinsdale!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
I don't have time to watch the video, but the title seems a bit weird. How can
infinity have a span
Dear Zibsey,
what a response to my short-cut exuberance in my 'agnosticism'!
Reminds me Rostand's tirade by Cyrano to the vicompt's brief Sir, your
nose is big..
I read it with gusto and - as usual - don't want to argue in detail.
I accept it as an addage to my ideas which I never want to get
On 28 October 2014 09:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Dinsdale!
Now you're just parroting...
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
That! My friend is an ex-parrot. I didn't come here for an argument. Yes you
did!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 04:11 PM
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
div
On 28 October 2014 10:18, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
That! My friend is an ex-parrot. I didn't come here for an argument. Yes
you did!
This could go on forever.. maybe we've discovered the span of
infinity
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 October 2014 10:18, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
That! My friend is an ex-parrot. I didn't come here
On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or
something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it
will contain infinities even
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Nobody spans the Spanish Inquistion!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 04:44 PM
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_7d9f723d-427d-4ebc-84ea
...@verizon.net wrote:
May be of interest to the group. Later today.
Brent
Original Message
The Span of Infinity
Saturday, October 25, 2014
2:30-4:30 pm
http://www.helixcenter.org/roundtables/the-span-of-infinity/
This is a panel discussion taking place this afternoon
On 26 October 2014 14:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Brent, I am quite familiar with Eric Steinhardt Paterson University, NJ.
He deals philosophically as a philosopher does, with the idea of
immortality, and identity.
Subject: Re: The Span of Infinity
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_c220507e-ccf0-4c64-8739-19619a5d34d1
div class=aolReplacedBody
div dir=ltr
div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
div class=aolmail_gmail_quote
On 26 October 2014 14:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
span dir=ltra target=_blank
href
May be of interest to the group. Later today.
Brent
Original Message
The Span of Infinity
Saturday, October 25, 2014
2:30-4:30 pm
http://www.helixcenter.org/roundtables/the-span-of-infinity/
This is a panel discussion taking place this afternoon in NYC (so I assume
class=aolmail_entry-title style=box-sizing: border-box;
font-family: Source-Sans-Pro, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.1; color: rgb(117, 118,
119); font-size: 20px;The Span of Infinity/h2
div style=box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(117
100 matches
Mail list logo
