On 5/16/2019 4:48 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
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
            <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.

The problem with #4 is there are not equal numbers of electrons and positrons.  But there are some positrons.  There aren't any of #1 and #2.

Brent

--
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/480fc451-36fd-0d84-9afe-094fa85b8ed7%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to