On 26 June 2014 23:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Ok, thanks. I think I grasp your idea. But ISTM you are taking fiction
and artefact to mean untrue or non-existent. I don't see that is
justified. Just because a water molecule is made of three atoms doesn't
make it a fiction. If
On 27 June 2014 05:02, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Well my original phrase was convenient fiction and it was only intended to
be considered relevant in a context of what is and isn't fundamental /
primitive. Obviously the convenient fictions ARE very convenient, for
example I prefer to be
On 26 June 2014 04:33, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
*All political and sociological phenomena whatsoever CAN be reduced without
loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings.*
Yes of course, but that was my point. I offered the analogy as a toy model
of 3p
On 25 June 2014 23:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why
wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to
elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis)
as temperature,
On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact.
Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't
eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a
difference between eliminating in an
On 6/26/2014 6:10 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact.
Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't
eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules.
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond
On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement
level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction
= untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a
fiction, since
On 6/26/2014 1:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement
level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction
= untrue. If there is not a basement, then
On 27 June 2014 10:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2014 1:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a
basement
level explanation then everything above is a fiction?
On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:37, David Nyman wrote:
On 10 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
They're along for the ride like temperature is alftr on the
kinetic energy of molecules. Before stat mech, heat was regarded as
an immaterial substance. It was explained by the
On 25 June 2014 17:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The problem is that, in the final analysis - and it is precisely the
*final* analysis that we are considering here - such theories need take no
account of any intermediate level of explanation in order to qualify as
theories of
On 6/25/2014 11:27 AM, David Nyman wrote:
It exasperates me when people adduce phenomena such as temperature or life as analogous
to consciousness, without noticing that the analogy is, at best, a half-truth. It is
true - or at least plausible - that there might be some discoverable set of
On 26 June 2014 09:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:27 AM, David Nyman wrote:
It exasperates me when people adduce phenomena such as temperature or life
as analogous to consciousness, without noticing that the analogy is, at
best, a half-truth. It is true - or at
On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness
will do
anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict
@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
If you are correct, and a random pulse of gravity condenses the positioning,
because it slows the positions down, it could initiate a collapse of the
universe. Walls cause me to imagine regions beyond the electrons and
positions, but what
On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness
will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious
On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell
may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like
bubbles in a Pepsi.
Well, I'm afraid that proves it isn't the Real Thing! :-)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 09:22, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons and
positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s. They are going too fast
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:25 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 05:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
“So what”. My point is you cannot prove Einstein’s
faster than the speed of
light. Which would explain why more than the expected number reach sea level.
JR
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell may be
very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a
Pepsi.
Well, I'm afraid
@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:11 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell
may
On 26 June 2014 11:47, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
What is you answer as to what is beyond our Universe if it is not a shell?
That was a joke, the Coke vs Pepsi advertising campaign which used the
phrase It's the real thing
I just answered your second question.
Would you
On 6/25/2014 4:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Note that I have not
On 26 Jun 2014, at 8:07 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced
without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in
which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated.
On 26 June 2014 15:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 4:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Note that I have not argued
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:05 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 09:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our
is enormously simpler than Albert’s.
John R.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 08:55, John Ross
So what is this photon reflector shell made from? Why wouldn't it absorb rather
than reflect.
-Original Message-
From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:47 pm
Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
The light
, June 24, 2014 11:34 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
So what is this photon reflector shell made from? Why wouldn't it absorb rather
than reflect.
-Original Message-
From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com
To: everything-list everything
On 25 June 2014 04:48, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background
radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang.
Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of
our
On 25 June 2014 05:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
“So what”. My point is you cannot prove Einstein’s relativity theories
are correct by citing small variations in the ticking of clocks.
You can't prove any theory is correct by any observation, you can only
disprove theories.
On 25 June 2014 09:22, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons
and positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s. They are going
too fast to combine as positronium.
Why is a particle moving too fast to combine
--
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, send email to
, June 19, 2014 6:53 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 20 June 2014 06:48, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe,
no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we
On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high
speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different
gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
here on earth
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high
speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different
gravitational levels
-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use
Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks
light.
JR
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com
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 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 Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special
Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for
me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a
feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however
unlikely, that i could be correct and Einstein (and all of those who
believe him)
My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe,
no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we
knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang
should be the same everywhere.
John R
On 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark
On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
In what way is it faulty? SR
On 20 June 2014 06:48, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe,
no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we
knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang
should be the same
On 20 June 2014 04:42, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for
me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a
feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however
unlikely, that i
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
Clock speeds may be effected but not time. Time passes at the same rate
everywhere in our Universe.
Light travels through
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
Clock speeds may be effected but not time.
OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to
describe whatever it is that clocks
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all
non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based
on
On 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
Clock speeds may be effected but not time.
OK fine, but if it's not time then we're
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com javascript: wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that
On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:01, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether
it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or
whether it's really real
I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use
Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth.
On 17 June
On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use
Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
so easy to adjust them in
On 13 Jun 2014, at 04:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 7:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 02:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Simply because you can give something you call a basic
accounting of a
painting by specifying the placement of pigments on a canvas doesn't
I thought I have commented this, but my computer claims I did not.
Anyway, i make precisions.
On 13 Jun 2014, at 17:07, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 01:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But although we may speculate that consciousness and physical
events both
depend on
On 13 Jun 2014, at 23:22, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is
basic).
This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
exhaustive physical accounting of any given
On 14 Jun 2014, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is
basic).
This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
On 14 Jun 2014, at 01:43, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
This makes it
On 14 Jun 2014, at 01:46, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
Moreover, it is not
straightforwardly reducible to the underlying arithmetical entities
and relations, because the selective principle in question *depends
On 14 Jun 2014, at 02:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it
emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema.
It's not clear what
On 14 Jun 2014, at 05:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 5:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 12:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological
psychology or
theology. See my URL or post, if interested.
Bruno
JR
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 07 Jun
On 15 Jun 2014, at 22:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of
Plato and
Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
number is
On 15 Jun 2014, at 23:49, John Mikes wrote:
How much was a day before Creation?
and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth?
Very good question.
Comp is lucky for not being asked to answer this, as the outer god can
be limited to the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, and it is not
On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:03, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 08:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of
Plato and
Aristotle. I would be
On 6/16/2014 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp *has* a notion of primitive matter (the sum on all computations below the subst
level, or []p t with p sigma_1), but it is defined as observable by a universal
machine.
And is this not the same as the defintion I gave as the physical is what
I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results.
I just don't believe space can be curved. And I do believe Coulomb fields
can be curved. Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a
combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be
On 17 June 2014 07:57, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results.
You should at least know that that is how a physical theory works.
I just don't believe space can be curved.
Why not? It just needs a higher dimension.
On 15 June 2014 01:38, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My model provides an explanation of everything including gravity which I
understand is not explained by QM. QM does not explain logically why
electrons do not blow themselves apart. I don't believe in quantum
weirdness.
Please
On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and
Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my
theory relates to
On 15 Jun 2014, at 02:22, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory
with numbers and so on:
Untitled.jpg
I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long
expression, now I
On 14 Jun 2014, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select
and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which
would emulate validly Brunos and Davids finding that reason, and
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 7:37:25 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and
incarnate
consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate
validly Brunos and
Davids
On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com
mailto:jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and
Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
number is
How much was a day before Creation?
and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth?
JM
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jun 2014, at 02:22, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz wrote:
E.G.:
On 16 June 2014 08:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and
Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell
On 16 June 2014 09:49, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
How much was a day before Creation?
and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth?
The Earth Mother?
She probably tidied up on the 8th day, too.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just
a
precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really
real
ur-stuff.
Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if
On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's
just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's
really real ur-stuff.
Yes, that's one way to
On 6/15/2014 5:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's
just a
precise and and strictly logical
On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem
determined to look at the result only in one way.
Because that's the way that accords with our science-based experience about
the world, yes.
I'd say what
On 6/15/2014 5:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem
determined
to look at the result only in one way.
Because that's the way that accords
On 16 June 2014 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2014 5:51 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem
determined to look at the result only in one way.
Because
On 13 Jun 2014, at 17:07, David Nyman wrote:
You're right, oftentimes they do. But I wouldn't include Bruno in
people here (if you see what I mean). Once one assumes the existence
of the UD (or rather its infinite trace) the hard problem then becomes
one of justifying in detail every aspect of
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Further more, I'm not even sure that the reductionist program
of looking for what's most fundamental (in a TOE) and
position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two
slits experiment.
Bruno
Jr
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
I do not explain consciousness.
Fair
Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light
beams are curved by these large masses. I say that large masses produce
Coulomb grids through which light travels. Under both theories the paths
of light are affected. I don't see any problem. Einstein and I reach the
same
On 14 June 2014 04:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I thought I'd been pretty clear that it's ill defined, a point on which I
agree with Bruno. I tried to define it in the exchange with David, but he
seemed to reject my definition and just assumed everybody knows what it
means.
As I
Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with
numbers and so on:
I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression,
now I certainly don't.
Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
John M
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR
is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
John M
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory
Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with
numbers and so on:
I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long
expression, now I certainly don't.
Question: how much
On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and incarnate
consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate validly Brunos and
Davids finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to
On 15 June 2014 02:13, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light
beams are curved by these large masses. I say that large masses produce
Coulomb grids through which light travels. Under both theories the paths
of light are
On 15 June 2014 02:42, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
*6 6 6 ! Boo! *
As anyone who watches QI will tell you, it's actually 616 (it's there in
Revelations, altho I forget the exact wording). Someone miscalculated.
--
You received this message
On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with
numbers and so on:
I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression,
now I certainly don't.
Question: how much is the NUMERICAL
1 - 100 of 563 matches
Mail list logo
