On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > ‘I believe there are >>>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 >>>>> >>>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ >>>>> > >>>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. >>>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the >>>>> Chapter >>>>> XI, The Physical Universe. >>>>> >>>>> Lol. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently >>>> understood number. >>>> >>>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All >>>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space >>>> and >>>> time. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>>> >>>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot >>>>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) >>>>> >>>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> \ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The number of electrons and protons stays the same? >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production >>> >>> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its >>> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron >>> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair >>> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an >>> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. >>> >>> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was >>> used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers. >>> >>> >>> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons >>> we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would >>> explain telepathy and precognition. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed >> up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no >> more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. >> There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various >> tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been >> found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons. >> >> LC >> > > > But, in order: > > 1. Precognition. > 2. Telepathy. > 3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked. > 4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see > are just the same electron weaving through space and time. > > The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've ever seen). > 3 is crazy. > But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea can't > really say the others are "crazy", can they? > > @philipthrift >
Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and time to create this multifold appearance this electron crosses horizons. That means information other than quantum numbers for electrons, spin, charge, isospin and mass, does not traverse all of space and time. This means that while the electrons in my body or brain may be really manifestations of the same electron defining those in other brains that reading thoughts is not possible this way. Think about it, if this is right then this one electron manifests itself with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any sense that we might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron pressure in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous. LC -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/076704e5-abd2-4381-a5ca-f183032f282f%40googlegroups.com.
