On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Horace,
My comments below, some things are still wrong
2009/11/25 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
Gad. It still isn't right! Corrections below. I have vertigo at
the
moment and can't think straight. I've actually done half of
Michel Jullian wrote:
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future.
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:13 PM, William Beaty wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time
at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of
interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton,
On Nov 25, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Very few labs have the ability to even attempt to examine the
correlation accurately, and the studies which have been done have
error bars which I think are too large to establish the actual
mechanism by which the
Harry Veeder wrote:
Right. And that is a weird idea! It is axiomatic that you cannot prove
something is impossible, only that it is possible.
Couldn't you say the amount of excess heat proves it is impossible to be
chemical in origin?
I guess I should have said 'you cannot prove something
Those sympathetic to the notion that life once, or possibly still, exists on
Mars, take heed:
Martian meteorite surrenders new secrets of possible life
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24marslife/
http://tinyurl.com/yhvlq7l
ALH84001,0 is back in the news.
Excerpt:
Sources tell
unsubscribe
Horace,
2009/11/26 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
snip
Here is the original explanation, less the garbled indicator test
information:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...
It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in
solution that
Michel
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But
it doesn't
Michel
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that
it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it
doesn't
Mauro
By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every
calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process.
Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the difference
between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself is a
Mauro
By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in
every
calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process.
Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the
difference
between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself
Jeff Fink wrote:
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
11-24-09
There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails.
Since when are leaked emails a source of anything except noise?
What reason is there for believing that a leaked email which supports
the agenda of the one who reveals it is
13 matches
Mail list logo
