Re: Nuclear power
Hi John, On 23 Nov 2013, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote: Bruno wrote: ...Health should separate from the State, like the Church. I respectfully disagree. I appreciate :) Health care is a societal duty to be provided for those unfortunate who are not capable of covering their needs - like the poor, dependants of sick people, old folks (the last two only if they do not fall into categories callable 'super rich') and such duty cannot be solely based on charity. I respectfully agree! I o follow the like the Chorch part: di you mean ' the Church should separate from the State', or is Church meant as a variation for 'State' in charge of Health? (The latter not making much sense). When I say that health must be separated from the state, I mean only that the choice of medication and treatment should be free to you, and is a private question, concerning only you, and perhaps the doctor or shaman that you might have chosen. The state can enforce general principles like the obligation to put warnings on side effects, and traceability of components on the medication box; it can enforce vaccination of some diseases, and it can enforce some societal duty for the unfortunate. But it cannot chosen between radiotherapy and THC injection for you, it cannot make any medication (drug) illegal; on the contrary, it has to manage free and honest competition between all the many art of curing. My point is mainly only that we should not allow other people deciding what is good or bad to you, and we should forbid prohibition of foods and drugs. Modern states 'make money' on everything just to cover corruption, no matter how devaastating it may be on the citizens (e.g. wars for the Special Interest wealth). Yes. I would not volunteer to propose HOW and WHERE to start refurbishing the community governance. Humanity is not 'ready' to act decently (reasonably). I agree, alas. We have NO democracy (no system can be maintained according to the full agreement of the populace, not even for a majority of it - in which case the 'minority' would be subdued against their will) especially NOT in a cpitalistic setup where a minority of owners rules over the majority of employees and the high authorities (e.g. the US Supreme Court) allows wealthy people, 'corporations (i.e. persons(?) - )' to contribute unchecked amounts of MONEY for election bribery. We have no perfect democracy, but an imperfect democracy is still better than a tyranny. Then we have been blind and tolerate prohibition laws which change, slowly but surely, democracy into corporatist-tyranny, and that can only lead to catastrophes for all. And - PLEASE - do not forget the G U N S ! (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Bruno On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 00:40, John Mikes wrote: How about alcoholic drinks? They may kill, put you in a frenzy, destroy your self-control and is addictive. How about GAMBLING? it destroys families and cause tragedies.Also addictive. How about tobacco? you don't kill anybody for having used it, except yourself and maybe people in your surrounding - costing tremendeous amounts of money to cure the damages. Highly addictive. There is few doubt that alcohol and tobacco are the two hardest drugs known today. That is another bad consequence of prohibition: it makes the most dangerous drug legal, and it makes schedule one products which are not much toxic and non addictive, like cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. In fact it makes the state into a drug dealers. Many legal medication are also toxic and addictive. Tobacco is the killer one on the planet. All these bring in huge revenues for governemnts (and entrepreneurs) ... Health should separate from the State, like the Church. Bruno JM On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power On 20 Nov 2013, at 17:33, Chris de Morsella wrote: The more urgent sacrifice we have to do is to make cannabis legal, stop prohibition and the lies which go with it. We legalized Cannabis in the state of Washington Yes, I know, and I congratulate your for that. You show the path! Amsterdam Copenhagen (Christiania) showed the way earlier.
Re: Atheism is wish fuklfillment.
You mean the belief that we can explain everything? I think Raymond Smullyan said something simliar. On 24 November 2013 02:04, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? Bruno On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Bruno asks: Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? Bruno On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Science may never answer the WHY question, but it surely must answer the HOW question. Once we know how, we will likely know why? Right now our ability to understand the universe has been hampered by insufficient tools to observe and analyze what was. But we have become much better over the last 2 decades. What we know is that we have not detected intelligence, anywhere close by. My own personal guesses or at least what I have been toying with is-just by basing it on models scientists know is: 1) God like evolved or arrived as or from a Boltzmann Brain. Technically it fits the bill. 2) There likely is an afterlife based on the concept of Storage Area Networks. So the self-same data gets written stored and processed, in two different geographical locations so the programs, processes, and information are preserved. In our case, or life, entire's, case, the local storage that is ourselves, is local, and the other site is non-local. The same could be said of fleas, mollusks, our own gut bacteria, and giraffes. The inspiration for my foolishness, is the combination of the EPR effect combined with the holographic theory. I cannot say of String or Loop hypotheses has anything to do with my toy model? Last, the mentioning of the good, Marquis de Sade, brings this old stage tune to mind, from the play, Marat-Sade. I don't know if this informs our discussion, but the mentioning of Sade caused me to think of Marat-Sade. Four years he fought and he fought unafraid Sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed Marat in the courtroom Marat underground Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest The business man the bourgeois the military beast Marat always ready to stifle every scheme Of the sons of the ass licking dying regime -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 4:40 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? Bruno On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Geminoid replicator
Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)?? -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: undisclosed-recipients:; Sent: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 11:06 pm Subject: Fwd: Geminoid replicator From another list: Conway's life not only lives - now it can evolve. Brent Original Message Dave Green has put together a replicator for Conway Life. He has several versions. The smallest, fastest, has a bounding box of 3.7M^2, and takes 89M ticks to make a copy. If I'm reading his description correctly, the population of ON cells is 150K, most of which is information-carrying gliders. Rich - Forwarded message The phase-shifted linear replicator is finally done -- several versions, actually, all using the same single-arm universal constructor and the same basic recipe. See http://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2t=1006p=9908#p9901 The smallest pattern file is only 27K compressed, but the uncompressed macrocell file is almost 100K so I won't try quoting it here. There are links in the forum posting. Keep the cheer, Dave Greene -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Geminoid replicator
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)?? This is really cool, but I don't think that the GoL is enough to model fundamental reality. My intuition is that it is sufficient to capture some aspects of it, maybe enough to create a toy model that bootstraps evolutionary processes. On the other hand, the type of locality in GoL seems too simplistic. I believe that the GoL is Turing-complete, so if you accept comp you can imagine the universal machine running in the medium of the GoL, but I don't think this is what you're looking for. Telmo. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: undisclosed-recipients:; Sent: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 11:06 pm Subject: Fwd: Geminoid replicator From another list: Conway's life not only lives - now it can evolve. Brent Original Message Dave Green has put together a replicator for Conway Life. He has several versions. The smallest, fastest, has a bounding box of 3.7M^2, and takes 89M ticks to make a copy. If I'm reading his description correctly, the population of ON cells is 150K, most of which is information-carrying gliders. Rich - Forwarded message The phase-shifted linear replicator is finally done -- several versions, actually, all using the same single-arm universal constructor and the same basic recipe. See http://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2t=1006p=9908#p9901 The smallest pattern file is only 27K compressed, but the uncompressed macrocell file is almost 100K so I won't try quoting it here. There are links in the forum posting. Keep the cheer, Dave Greene -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 24 Nov 2013, at 14:35, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno asks: Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. That is not entirely clear to me. In a sense, I can agree, but this is because the natural numbers, and addition and multiplication makes already *sense* to me. From that sense, much more sense can develop. And *we* can add even more sense in some creative way. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome. That is still an open problem for me (with or without comp). Computationalism, I think, is useful just by showing that this question is difficult, notably to some intrinsic vocabulary problem. In computer science the notion of goal and purpose is not so hard (Mars Rover's purpose is to send us as many information about Mars from the tools it disposes of, for example). I guess you mean that there should be a universal purpose, but I am not sure it is more than add and multiply. Interesting question. It is the place where I find both Plotinus and the universal machine quite cryptic. It is the question of personhood of God. With comp (+Theaetetus) you can give a personhood to the inner God, but the outer God is more like the Tao, or the Indra Net, it is just (arithmetical) truth yet so far beyond us that Well, open problem. Bruno On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? Bruno On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Liz: your precise version (with Bruno's rounding it up) makes me evoid to call myself an atheist: An 'atheist' requires god(s) to DENY. In my (rather agnostic) worldview there is no place (requirement) for supernatural (whatever that may be) 'forces' to control nature. I feel reluctant to draw conclusions about 'nature' (everything - beyond the physicists' view) based upon what makes sense to us today. And I would ask Bruno to add to his 'Christian God' concept Allah and the Jewish god(s?) - he mentioned the Hindi ones briefly. All 'gods' are culturally benevolent - preferring the 'good' and 'useful' for the praying ones, e.g. annihilate their enemies, while THE SAME GOD is asked by those same enemies to annihilate the prayee - both hoping to be heard. Here is the societal input: murder is a sin, unless it is in the interest of society (war) when it is the ultimate heroism (or: if it is to retaliate against the infidel, when it paves the way into heaven.) I like Spudboy's argumentation. *Afterlife?* I sent a little snap to Brent about two fetuses arguing in the womb whether there is *life **beyond birth*? Brent replied with Mark Twain's bon mot: 'Since he was in that 'afterlife' world for billions of years before he was born and did not carry any adverse memories from there, he is not afraid to go back after death.' It is all in the same imagination where my mistake has its roots when I said if something exists in our mind then it surely DOES exist (there). Accepting (in Bruno's sharp view) the existence of a mind. I am adversive to a court-like processing of an 'eternal(???) soul based on a short life-span (maybe only 10 years? or 1 day?) with a verdict similar to how the injustice-systems work in the diverse societal setups and 'imagined' for my belief-system the complexity of 'us' (all living/non living creatures) falling apart at death - maybe into portions only - and joining other complexities not fallen apart.. Elements may stay and act in the new environment - a source of spiritism experienced. It embraces the reincarnation and all ghost stories without the usual explanations that may scare us. No demons haunting. *Evolution?* Not in my views with a connotation of striving for 'better' or 'final'... Changes occur to comply with given ci5rcumstances and capabilities in RELATIONS (unknown). Whatever can - will survive and the changes - better or worse - go on. If a 'god' pre-planned an evolution, why are we not started with the end-product? Why the zillion extinctions? Why the unfathomable variety? (Again a human-logic stance - ha ha). My wife, however, embraces the view of 'us' kept by 'zookeepers' in this universe for purposes unknown - does not share my ignorance and dreams about a 'purpose' of our being here. Not only by nice dreams. John Mikes On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:06 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Geminoid replicator
On 24 Nov 2013, at 17:02, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)?? Conway's game of life is (Turing) Universal, so it can emulate anything Turing emulable. It is one of the many equivalent to arithmetic or quantum topology, with respect to the class of computable functions (from N to N). I prefer not to start from it, as it is less known than numbers, but also because it borrows already some quasi-physical intuition, like the digital two dimensional plane, which I think has itself a deeper origin. But to model diffusion process, and many things, cellular automata are quite nice. Yet, for the fundamental inquiry, once we assume comp, we cannot favor one UM on any other at the start. If some special UM plays a special role, this has to be justified from the infinite competition between all UMs below our substitution level. Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: undisclosed-recipients:; Sent: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 11:06 pm Subject: Fwd: Geminoid replicator From another list: Conway's life not only lives - now it can evolve. Brent Original Message Dave Green has put together a replicator for Conway Life. He has several versions. The smallest, fastest, has a bounding box of 3.7M^2, and takes 89M ticks to make a copy. If I'm reading his description correctly, the population of ON cells is 150K, most of which is information-carrying gliders. Rich - Forwarded message The phase-shifted linear replicator is finally done -- several versions, actually, all using the same single-arm universal constructor and the same basic recipe. See http://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2t=1006p=9908#p9901 The smallest pattern file is only 27K compressed, but the uncompressed macrocell file is almost 100K so I won't try quoting it here. There are links in the forum posting. Keep the cheer, Dave Greene -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
There are variations. Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist by his political opponents. And they were correct since he seems to have been a deist, not a theist. Do you think there is a difference between believing the God of Abraham does not exist and failing to believe that He does? Brent On 11/24/2013 1:06 AM, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Yes. Notably. I agree. It is the fuzzy belief that the Christian God does not exist, together with the belief in the Christian Matter. The debate between Atheists and Christians hides the deeper debate between Aristotle and Plato. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Global warming silliness
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic effects from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet. Hard to reconcile that with this: An estimated 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances were released into the atmosphere in March 2011 by the triple meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday. Why are those 2 facts supposed to be incompatible? You continue to speak of the Fukushima disaster in the past tense, True. when in fact this is still very much an unfolding event. I believe the majority of the radiation that Fukushima is going to put into the environment it has already done so; but if I am wrong you have the opportunity to make money off of my error. I will make you the following bet, if more radiation is released between today and November 24 2014 than was released between March 11 2011 and today I will give you $1000, if more radiation is not released you only have to give me $100. I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds , so do we have a bet? Furthermore the statement you quote is the historic BS half-truth metric that the pro-nuclear lobby loves to trot out That BS comes from the journal Science, it and Nature are the 2 most respected journals in the world! I get my information from scientists, where do you get yours, environmental dimwits who make their living by scaring people? The intellectual dishonesty lies in speaking only of exposure, while ignoring contamination; That makes no sense, you can't get contaminated if you're not exposed. And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, environmental groups say they're for renewable energy because global warming is of supreme existential importance, but just yesterday i was reading how a company called Duke Energy Renewables had to give a one million dollar fine to environmental groups because its wind farm killed 14 eagles. The American Bird Conservancy no doubt likes the money and said the fine was a positive first step but the government needs to do more. Pure undiluted hypocrisy. Exposure levels can be very low, but if you are one of the unlucky bio-organisms to become contaminated you get cancer, And other than the significant exceptions of Fukushima and Chernobyl, Nuclear power plants only release 1% as much radioactivity into the environment as a coal power plant of the same size. Coal contains both radioactive Uranium and Thorium and when it is burned it goes right up the chimney and into the air. Coal also produces a witches brew of other substances that, although not radioactive, are highly carcinogenic; and unlike nuclear power coal produces lots and lots of greenhouse gasses that environmentalists keep telling us are horrible. John K Clark -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
If it was just the Christian God then believers in Odin and the Ancient Romans and Egyptians and so on would all be atheists which seems a bit silly! -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11/24/2013 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by god before you can answer whether god exists or not. So what is the definition of physical reality? It seems to me that physical only adds the concept of shared/public. But Plato also intended his reality to be shared and public. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 25 November 2013 10:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by god before you can answer whether god exists or not. So what is the definition of physical reality? It seems to me that physical only adds the concept of shared/public. But Plato also intended his reality to be shared and public. It seems quite hard to pin down exactly what physical means, now that we can no longer visualise particles as tiny billiard balls. I think the important point is whether physical is fundamental, or derived from something else. Aristotle would say the former, Plato the latter. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
So far left out of this discussion is that the physical reality that we observe and derive physical laws for may be only 5% of the universe, the other 95% being comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which are actually just placeholders for the unknown. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/24/2013 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by god before you can answer whether god exists or not. So what is the definition of physical reality? It seems to me that physical only adds the concept of shared/public. But Plato also intended his reality to be shared and public. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
It seems unlikely that the nature of dark matter and dark energy will change the ontological status of matter generally. A materialist, for example, will assume that they are more of the same -- but less interactive, at least with our 5%. On 25 November 2013 13:08, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: So far left out of this discussion is that the physical reality that we observe and derive physical laws for may be only 5% of the universe, the other 95% being comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which are actually just placeholders for the unknown. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/24/2013 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much sense to me (even without comp). This is well illustrated by the french philosophers like La Mettrie and Sade, defending the right to do what you want in your life (including torturing children and women), as you have only one life to profit on. It is part of the origin of the political materialism, implemented in both communism and capitalism, and indeed both are aggressive with any form of spiritualism, and confuse a rich life with a life of rich. The big conceptual difference between Aristotle and Plato is that in Aristotle there is a belief in a primitive material universe, where for Plato, the material universe is a shadow (an emanation, a border, a reflection, a projection,...) of something else (the one, God, the universal dream, etc.). It is the opposition between naturalism (materialism, physicalism), and the other conceptions of reality (which can still be rational, like with the antic greeks and Indians). Atheists and Christians are alike. They have the same conception of the creator (the first to deny it, the second to believe in it), and the same conception of the creation (a material universe). The real religious debate is about the primitive or not existence of the physical reality. Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by god before you can answer whether god exists or not. So what is the definition of physical reality? It seems to me that physical only adds the concept of shared/public. But Plato also intended his reality to be shared and public. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
This looks like another article on the same theory. http://phys.org/news189792839.html#nRlv On 25 November 2013 14:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin and torsion while the mass stayed constant. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in the Bagavatum Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose. Poplawski theory says that the baby universe forms at the sametime as the black hole. I will be looking for developments of this theory where more than one and perhaps a sequence of baby universes can form. Richard On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: This looks like another article on the same theory. http://phys.org/news189792839.html#nRlv On 25 November 2013 14:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
OK. I'm just a bit sceptical of the writers now, because what they said in the bit I quoted didn't seem correct, so maybe they made other mistakes. But in any case it's an interesting theory. On 25 November 2013 15:29, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin and torsion while the mass stayed constant. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely the mass of the black hole would remain the same whether it was in the form of matter or of energy? (Indeed, being inside an event horizon, surely no one outside could even know which form it was in.) On 25 November 2013 14:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas Hypernovas? unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs Until we have a suitable theory I will remain agnostic on that - and even on the existence of black holes, at least as classically envisaged. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On 25 November 2013 15:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in the Bagavatum Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose. I'm sure they nicked that from Douglas Adams. Beware the great white handkerchief! -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
Stars are the visible manifestation of the meta-stable equilibrium between the explosive power of fusion and the compressive power of gravity. In the end gravity wins - for the most part (or percentage of mass that is) Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Nuclear power Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the G U N S ! (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not prohibit guns either (although we could enforce serious regulations, and try to avoid selling efficacious automated guns to neurotic kids). In principle, I am in favor of the personal atomic bomb (take this with some amount of grains of salt). Also my viewpoint. With a grain of salt. Actually it doesn't seem hard to make an atomic bomb if you have the materials. It's kind of surprising no one has done so (or stolen one for ransom, as per Thunderball.) -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Nuclear power
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Jason -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Nuclear power
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Very interesting; never considered it that way. Thanks for sharing. So if a star is a compost heap, does that make a black hole the swirling flush of a cosmic toilet? I know. pretty much, a non-sequitur, but such is life :) Chris Jason -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nuclear power
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM *To:* Everything List *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume basis: a few hundred watts per cubic meter. On the same order as your own biological metabolism (and not much greater than that of a compost heap). It is only by virtue of the huge volume of a star that it produces large quantities of energy, but all the energy of a cubic meter of stellar core would be just enough to run a TV or a computer. Very interesting; never considered it that way. Thanks for sharing. Thanks, though I can't take credit for it, I found it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core#Energy_production which appears to be largely inspired from: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.htm So if a star is a compost heap, does that make a black hole the swirling flush of a cosmic toilet? I know… pretty much, a non-sequitur, but such is life :) :-) Jason -- 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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
