On 20 Mar 2014, at 23:07, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:12:33 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It looks like you have not yet grasped the UDA.
My post was not about the UDA; your comments are appreciated but
they miss the mark widely.
You post was not on UDA, but I
On 19 Mar 2014, at 18:58, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
I think the argument usually goes like this:
Suppose there's an infinite ensemble of the computations that
include a mental state that remembers having been you as you are
now. There are a lot of details needed to support such a mental
Very nice Richard. Not easy read though, but you preach a choir. I
believe that string theory is testable. Like comp.
Yet, even if string theory is confirmed, we would still have to
derived it from comp, if it is the real theory, and not a local
panorama.
Bruno
On 19 Mar 2014, at
On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/19/2014 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is
very interesting, so I will make some
On 3/20/2014 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/19/2014 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
I am not sure you are 100% serious on
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:12:33 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It looks like you have not yet grasped the UDA.
My post was not about the UDA; your comments are appreciated but they miss
the mark widely.
-Gabe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled out on his blog.
http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/bicep2-some-winners-and-losers.html
Very interesting! (IF)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
An article on the secrecy involved.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/secret-bicep-inflation/
On 21 March 2014 11:58, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled out on his blog.
Yay! More gravity waves! [?]
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/wired-space-photo-of-the-day-2014#slide-id-513201:full
On 21 March 2014 15:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
An article on the secrecy involved.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/secret-bicep-inflation/
On 21
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is very
interesting, so I will make some comments, which might not been taken
100% seriously.
At first, we might say that any
I think the argument usually goes like this:
Suppose there's an infinite ensemble of the computations that include a
mental state that remembers having been you as you are now. There are a
lot of details needed to support such a mental state. Let's say it takes a
minimum of N bits. Longer
Here is a prediction of the ratio of tensor to scalar of gravitational
waves.
They just got the ratio a bit low at 0.07 whereas the measured ratio is 0.2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0706
Gravity Waves and Linear Inflation from Axion Monodromy
Liam
On 3/19/2014 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is very interesting, so I
will make some comments, which might not
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
You might also like to see Chris de Morsella's post.
I'm not sure how to link to it but the title is First direct evidence of
cosmic inflation
Here is the link:
Inflation appears now to be evidenced
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?utm_source=hootsuiteutm_campaign=hootsuite
Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Sodid anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:14:00 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
Inflation appears now to be evidenced
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?utm_source=hootsuiteutm_campaign=hootsuite
OK - so I should have written Gravitational Wave (Gravity waves are something
else.)
K
On 18 Mar 2014, at 8:14 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Inflation appears now to be evidenced
On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:21:20 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
OK - so I should have written “Gravitational Wave” (Gravity waves are
something else.)
K
Oh, thanks for saying thatI thought they meant gravity waves. Which - I
thought - was a major prediction of Inflation.
--
You
Only if you're being very nitpicky...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave
I would say in the context of astrophysics or cosmology, everyone should
know what your mean if you say gravity wave (i.e. you mean a
gravitational wave).
And it's shorter to type.
On 18 March 2014 10:21, Kim
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05
On 18 March 2014 11:24, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:21:20 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
OK - so I should have written Gravitational Wave (Gravity waves are
something else.)
K
Oh, thanks for saying thatI thought they
This is very cool. Gravitational waves and inflation in one feel swoop.
(Well, a 3-year fell swoop.)
On 18 March 2014 12:20, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-05
On 18 March 2014 11:24, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:21:20 PM UTC,
You might also like to see Chris de Morsella's post.
I'm not sure how to link to it but the title is First direct evidence of
cosmic inflation
On 18 March 2014 12:21, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
This is very cool. Gravitational waves and inflation in one feel swoop.
(Well, a 3-year fell
Scientific American said Gravity Waves in the page title so I wouldn't
worry too much!
On 18 March 2014 10:21, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
OK - so I should have written Gravitational Wave (Gravity waves are
something else.)
K
On 18 Mar 2014, at 8:14 am, Kim Jones
Mind you BICEP2 is a rubbish acronym.
On 18 March 2014 13:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Scientific American said Gravity Waves in the page title so I wouldn't
worry too much!
On 18 March 2014 10:21, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
OK - so I should have written Gravitational
What's wrong with SPOTS detector (Swirly Pattern On The Sky) ?
:-)
On 18 March 2014 14:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Mind you BICEP2 is a rubbish acronym.
On 18 March 2014 13:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Scientific American said Gravity Waves in the page title so I wouldn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
