On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:04:48AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have
never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Dear Chris,
not that your answer sounds a bit vague - I have deeper problems.
I can understand your point of view – though I am not quite certain what it is
either. However
On 21 June 2014 16:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
that doesn't actually alter the logic of the argument, which is
only concerned with what he reports in his diary.
He? 3 people are keeping a diary, one writes
Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
ultraviolet, and the fact that there is a missed opportunity in visible
green is a relatively insignificant blip?
After all we only see less than one light
The blasphemy problem concerning religious text that was brought up by
Bruno in this thread, is present in Christianity/bible. What I have
difficulty understanding is how people who know that their God has
irreducible attributes that we cannot begin to comprehend, stick so close
to a text, that
On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
More important the mere Oracle Machinery are O-regions, which were
conjectured about 14 years ago bt Gauriga and Vilenkin.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010.pdf
?
I don't see any relation between Oracle (in Turing sense)
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I won't enter with you again on this debate
Coward.
Call him a coward johnnie boy
OK I will ghibbsaboy.
wot about you?
At least I have enough courage to sign my real name, the name on my birth
certificate is John K Clark,
I greatly appreciate the criticism of you, Liz and John Clark, but I have
seen nothing that has caused me to back down on any portion of my theory.
I never expected that my defense of my theory would be easy, since I am
up against the Standard Model and Einstein's theories of relativity.
I do
On 18 Jun 2014, at 22:49, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Thanks. It looks
On 19 Jun 2014, at 00:38, LizR wrote:
As far as I can see the only connection here is the fact they both
used the letter O. O-regions are interesting of course but don't
appear to be relevant to the current discussion?
On the subject of O-machines, in the case of Olympia I believe this
On 19 Jun 2014, at 02:00, LizR wrote:
PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first
two steps. Most people either disagree with the original
assumption(s), or go for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the
On 19 Jun 2014, at 02:00, LizR wrote:
PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first
two steps. Most people either disagree with the original
assumption(s), or go for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There is no but, Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game over.
I don't see that it invalidates his argument. In
On 19 Jun 2014, at 19:25, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we
were more than three to show you that in each case, you were
confusing 1-views and 3-views.
That was your
On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as
Bruno says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There is no but, Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game
over.
OK. That
On 20 Jun 2014, at 01:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 07:53:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And why do you say that anybody (whether zombie or not) can *prove*
the existence of primitive matter? We don't know that for a fact.
I played the devil advocate. I put my
On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2014 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why is that a contradiction?
In fact there are two contradictions.
I explain the contradiction which is relate to about.
'To prove A', classically, is equivalent to showing that ~A leads
to a
Maybe a BLACK tree? how 'bout barking in humanly non-audible
spectrum-parts of the frequencies? dogs may hear it. How 'bout if your
question touches items beyond our humanly accessible/accessed inventory?
Consider my appreciative reply within those parts.
JM
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:19 AM, LizR
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
ultraviolet, and the fact that there is a missed opportunity in visible
green is a relatively
On 23 June 2014 04:53, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I do take some comfort in Stephen Hawking's conclusions in his Theory of
Everything that science has become too complicated and that we need to
discover a complete theory that in time should be understandable in broad
principal by
On 23 June 2014 11:29, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
ultraviolet, and the fact
On 23 June 2014 05:49, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There is no but, Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0,
On 23 June 2014 06:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There
On 23 June 2014 04:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I apply math on the mathematician (the dreamer) like Everett applied
physics on the physicians.
I suspect you meant to say physicists. Physicians are doctors :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:59 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2014 04:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I apply math on the mathematician (the dreamer) like Everett applied
physics on the physicians.
I suspect you meant to say physicists. Physicians are doctors :-)
You could try a search for quaternionson the forum.
--
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
Thought this bit of news was interesting. Yes. it was a holiday, but still
more than half of a summer day peak demand of the major European economy
coming from solar electricity, is a pretty major milestone.
Chris
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-germany-day-energy-percent-solar.html
The
Cool!
(So to speak)
On 23 June 2014 16:25, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Thought this bit of news was interesting. Yes… it was a holiday, but still
more than half of a summer day peak demand of the major European economy
coming from solar
28 matches
Mail list logo
