On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
agree with what you wrote above.
you seek to find a logical contradiction as a
On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:06:39 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
javascript: wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't care to engage John anymore
No NO, anything but that!
I'm bored of this business.
Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are
On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
agree with what you wrote above.
you seek to find a logical contradiction as a
on the way out.
John K Clark
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 PGC multiplecit
On 31 October 2014 23:55, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
This is why I don't care to engage John anymore for time being. In the
frame/level he forces you to engage in, I gladly loose, because we're not
seeing eye to eye anyway, as competitive ego-bashing is nothing I care for:
I want to
Actually I think discussion of John Clark and his faults is off topic. How about taking
it off line.
Brent
On 10/31/2014 12:56 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreement and disagreement
Haha... The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter
concept could not be proven wrong since it was a priori...
But besides that, it remains the case that the electromagnetic force causes
positive charges to repel each other and to attract negative charges, which
are repellent
I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of photons
(or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
are emitted or absorbed) ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Peter Sas needs an education in physics.
He came to the right place.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
attractive/repusive at
True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic... Please
don't hold back when I say something stupid...
--
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
Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces
between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna
know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as
attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too
Magnetic forces are neither attractive nor repulsive.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces
between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna
know is this:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter concept
could not be proven wrong since it was a priori...
And once again a philosopher has got it wrong.
it remains the case that the electromagnetic
On 30 Oct 2014, at 15:06, Peter Sas wrote:
True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic...
Please don't hold back when I say something stupid...
No problem. In this list we get nervous only when people repeat the
same stupidity an infinity of time.
Intelligence is just
Well, in defence of poor old Kant, let us remember that together with
Laplace he was the discoverer of the nebular hypothesis about the formation
of solar systems... I gues a similar story holds about galaxies...
So the man was not totally useless.
And of course there is a strong Kantian
Obviously I meant MWI where I wrote WMI...
--
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,
On 10/30/2014 10:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com
mailto:peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter concept
could not be
proven wrong since it was a priori...
And once again
On 31 October 2014 03:06, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic... Please
don't hold back when I say something stupid...
Don't worry, they won't. The problem is getting them to hold back when you
say something intelligent.
On 31 Oct 2014, at 11:31 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Beware of replies that start But... - these appear to often be agreement
cunningly disguised to look like argumentation.
Excellent point. In fact there is no real need for anyone to play the
clever-clever yes, but card wherever
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
agree with what you wrote above.
John K Clark
--
You received this message
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of
attractive and repulsive forces
A magnetic field neither attracts nor repels an electron, instead it
applied a force that is always at right angles to the electron's
Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786)
where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental
categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of
the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on
Sorry about that last line... I forgot to delete that...
--
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
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:01:15AM -0700, Peter Sas wrote:
Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786)
where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental
categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of
the most
Balancing classical forces appears to require cancellation to infinite
precision (which is one of the problems with Tronnies). Quantum theory
fixes that by doing something akin to converting the maths from using real
numbers to integers.
On 29 October 2014 10:43, Russell Standish
On 10/28/2014 6:01 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Recently I readKant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) where he tries
to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental categories and principles
laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of the most interesting parts, I
28 matches
Mail list logo
