In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:41:30 -0900:
Hi Horace,
[snip]
>
>On Jan 16, 2009, at 7:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There are various theories that describe the motion of the electron
>> in the
>> Hydrogen atom. Since each of these theories obeys t
Looking up your "by gum", which I had never heard before, I came
across a nice web page where I was delighted to learn the hidden
meaning of this and other such expressions, such as Blimey (god blind
me) or Heck (hell).
Some others do an even better job at concealing their meaning, I
wouldn't be s
Delivered-To: hohlr...@gmail.com
Received: by 10.65.110.6 with SMTP id n6cs72790qbm;
Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.214.149.6 with SMTP id w6mr4418384qad.4.1232163698035;
Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path:
Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (ult
Michel sez:
> Looking up your "by gum", which I had never heard before, I came
> across a nice web page where I was delighted to learn the hidden
> meaning of this and other such expressions, such as Blimey (god blind
> me) or Heck (hell).
>
> Some others do an even better job at concealing their
Robin,
It would be interesting to know "how many" valid theories there are.
By "valid" that would mean a mathematical model which is predictive of major
physical properties that the other model is not, AND which predicitions are
then validated by observation. Using that as a guideline, Mills mo
Steven Krivit wrote:
>
> I suppose it would be fair to inform you that I have been aware for a few
> weeks that user JxG, (Guy Chapman from the U.K.) blacklisted both of our
> sites on Dec. 18.
>
Is that so? It is unimportant.
> Yours, I think, was upgraded (by JzG's encouragement) to an inter
Terry,
Which one is your ip?
Steve
At 06:55 AM 1/17/2009, you wrote:
Delivered-To: hohlr...@gmail.com
Received: by 10.65.110.6 with SMTP id n6cs72790qbm;
[snip]
Jan. 17 at 15:00
score: 410
comments: 13
This is probably within 500 from the top, making it visible to many people.
I have not checked many times today but I do not think the score dropped.
- Jed
My machine address would not show on a webap mailer; however, Google
can verify a valid recipient of a message.
Terry
On 1/17/09, Steven Krivit wrote:
> Terry,
>
> Which one is your ip?
>
> Steve
>
> At 06:55 AM 1/17/2009, you wrote:
> > Delivered-To: hohlr...@gmail.com
> > Received: by 10.65.
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
"I must confess that I use Wiki (Oink-Oink-Piki!) a lot. It's a quik
invaluable informational resource for NON CONTROVERSIAL subjects."
Sure. I use it too. And I still subscribe to Scientific American, which is
right about a lot of things.
Most institutions fail to
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:38:25 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>It would be interesting to know "how many" valid theories there are.
If one thinks of each model as a set of three dimensional wave patterns, then
there are probably quite a few more than we have alr
Hear, hear.
Wikipedia, the DoE and many other institutions have failed to deal with cold
fusion, and probably many other subjects too. We don't know how many others,
because they have been suppressed.
- Jed
You mentioned the "wave particle duality". There is no duality in
reality, particles are particles, it's some function determining the
probability of their being somewhere which is a wave, isn't it?
What first suggested to me that this duality didn't exist was
Feynman's introduction to QED:
"I wa
Ah Michel,
This kind of discussion usually resolves to the imponderable: "what is real?"
IOW - at what point does "behaves like" become "is".
And if that is not enough - one of our ex-presidents (well, make that
X-presidents), expressed it this way "what is the meaning of is?" Unless you
know
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian
Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Are they all correct?
> You mentioned the "wave particle duality". There is no duality in
> reality, particles are particles, it's some function determining the
> probability of their bei
On 1/17/09, Jones Beene wrote:
> And to make it worse, this "isness" debate was no deep epistemological
> discourse... more like a shallow intercourse ;-)
Which is the best I can accomplish at my age. :-)
Terry
Photosynthesis, smell and awareness:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Hear, hear.
Wikipedia, the DoE and many other institutions have failed to deal
with cold fusion, and probably many other subjects too. We don't know
how many others, because they have been suppressed.
Brilliant Jed. The question is how can we stop it. More to the point,
17 matches
Mail list logo
