computational states. QP seems right up there.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
On 15 February 2015 at 07:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
Brent: cute. You said already something similar earlier. What I am asking
is the raport WHY we say the chair has mass and we expend energy - in
a scientific explanatory sense.
BTW I tried (and failed) to pick up a proton to experience its 'mass'.
According to some physicists it also has som
On 2/23/2015 12:49 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: cute. You said already something similar earlier. What I am asking is the raport
WHY we say the chair has mass and we expend energy - in a scientific explanatory
sense.
I'm sure you're aware that in the scientific sense they are values within
Liz: any idea what - MASS - anad - ENRGY- 'may' be? (not from the
equational recourses based on the supposition of their 'existence' in
science!)
JM
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2015 at 09:50, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
This
On 2/23/2015 11:48 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Liz: any idea what - MASS - anad - ENRGY- 'may' be? (not from the equational recourses
based on the supposition of their 'existence' in science!)
JM
You want a pre-theoretic idea of mass and energy? Pick up your chair and lift it over
your head ten
states. QP seems
right up there.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
On 15 February 2015 at 07:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
On 17 February 2015 at 09:50, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
This may seem off the subject, but conservation of mass-energy must not be
correct, otherwise our Universe could not have become so large (in terms of
both *mass and energy)*.
I believe this is true. Mass-energy isn't
: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
On 14 February 2015 at 06:47, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Liz
On 15 February 2015 at 07:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Being a fool, I ask, Is it possible to do a theology (In the Marchal sense
of the word) from quantum potential? Just asking.
Assuming quantum potential supports a universal computer, I
: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Empty space is the same as nothing.
No way! if it is a 'definite' space, it has borders and characteristics.
I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I don’t
think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think “nothing
On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the
On 13 Feb 2015, at 11:41, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just
a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is
*Empty space is **the same as nothing.*
No way! if it is a 'definite' space, it has borders and characteristics.
*I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I
don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think
“nothing” presupposes the laws of
On 14 February 2015 at 06:47, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Liz,
A universe from nothing may sound absurd but a universe that has always
existed and had no beginning is more absurd.
Neither of these is absurd. That would just be human preconceptions, based
around the domain
On 14 February 2015 at 07:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 11:41, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is
:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:04 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you write below. Current writing
by cosmologists etc on getting a universe from nothing assume the prior
existence of at least a background space-time. More usually, this is assumed to
be the vacuum
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you write below. Current
writing by cosmologists etc on getting a universe from nothing assume
the prior existence of at least a background space-time. More usually,
this is assumed to be the vacuum of quantum field theory. So there is a
clear
Now that we've sorted out the acronyms, I'd appreciate a response to the
points I made - see below.
Empty space *is *the same as nothing.
I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions why
is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go to the
bother of
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of a
universe from nothing is absurd.'
Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Kellett
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can
only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of a universe from
nothing is absurd.' Either you have
On 2/12/2015 9:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can
only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 9:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can
Thanks.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:22 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
LOP = Laws of physics
On 12 February 2015 at 12:32
Hi John
As I mentioned before, empty space isn't the same as nothing. It already
presupposes the laws of physics, even if it doesn't do much with them
they're there. What we're discussing is where the laws of physics
themselves come from (and perhaps things they appear to rely on, like
maths).
.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Is there a simple explanation for dummies of what an infinitely old
On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Hi Liz,
Good to hear from you again.
Empty space *is *the same as nothing.
I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions why
is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go
: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:04 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Hi Liz,
Good to hear from you again.
Empty space is the same as nothing.
I would say far
interesting, if true. (So they've removed that pesky factor of 10 to
the power of 120 from the calculations...!?)
On 11 February 2015 at 10:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Cosmology from quantum potential
Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A/0/1/0/all
Cosmology from quantum potential
Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Saurya
Das http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Das_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 11 Apr 2014 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v1), last
revised 29 Dec 2014 (this version, v3))
It was shown
Very interesting, if true. (So they've removed that pesky factor of 10 to
the power of 120 from the calculations...!?)
On 11 February 2015 at 10:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Cosmology from quantum potential
Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A
32 matches
Mail list logo
