On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 11/14/2013 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Telmo, Bruno,
I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you.
To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate.
Jason
If I use it (and I
Thanks for the good work Jason.
Hmm... I do have a critics, which is minor or major: I don't see any
difference between the beam and the attenuated beam on my screen.
In fact I would avoid color, or I would still use any trick so that
even on a bad black and white screen we can clearly see
Great work Jason!
Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this.
I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him.
For example:
http://www.mollietaylor.com/2012/10/color-blindness-and-palette-choice.html
I also use the color blind friendly palette when
On 15 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Great work Jason!
Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this.
I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him.
For example:
http://www.mollietaylor.com/2012/10/color-blindness-and-palette-choice.html
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Great work Jason!
Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this.
I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him.
For example:
On 15 Nov 2013, at 16:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Great work Jason!
Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with
this.
I have a color blind colleague,
On 11/14/2013 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Telmo, Bruno,
I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you.
To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate.
Jason
If I use it (and I probably will - with attribution) I would replace the TV phosphor
screens
Thanks Jason, nice work!
A few comments:
- It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into
two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively
expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the
exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in
Telmo,
Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will
incorporate it into a new and improved version.
Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a
very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single
atom, etc. (something
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo,
Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will
incorporate it into a new and improved version.
Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very
small (but
I'm going to teach a public class on QM and when I saw this email I thought Great! I'll
just steal Jason's stuff. And I liked the first part. But at the end you leave out
decoherence and leave the impression that it is the mind that produces the classical
appearance. That would REALY
Thanks for uploading it, great job!
Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM:
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg
Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as
literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm going to teach a public class on QM and when I saw this email I
thought Great! I'll just steal Jason's stuff. And I liked the first part.
Thanks. Let me know if you would like the powerpoint slides.
But at the
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for uploading it, great job!
Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM:
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg
Beams exist only within the experience of the various
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Thanks for uploading it, great job!
Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/81bb846756fd19a9561c4bceae885d3e/tumblr_mw2xreqAQl1qeenqko1_500.jpg
Another diagram, maybe better?
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Thanks for
On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote:
Telmo,
Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and
I will incorporate it into a new and improved version.
Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I
used a very small (but light absorbing
17 matches
Mail list logo
