Hi Jesse:
At 10:51 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Jesse:
In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two
adjacent regions is always the same.
Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model
allows motion. In a discrete state evolving univers
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Jesse:
In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two adjacent
regions is always the same.
Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model allows
motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no motion while a
universe is in a
Hi Jesse:
In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two
adjacent regions is always the same.
Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model
allows motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no
motion while a universe is in a particular state a
Hi Russell:
Because there is only one primitive - an isolated point and one
source of "meaning" its position in its region. If the region has
only discrete locations then one can encode a state of this type of
universe directly as a string of 0's and 1's. 1's mark the position
occupied by t
Hi Russell:
At 06:56 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
But look at your assumptions.
* 3 dimensions
Actually there are more space dimensions. The FCC ABC layering
provides in general six additional local dimensions from the point of
view of the central region.
* a discrete lattice structure: wh
Hi Russell:
I forgot to mention that for the asynchronously updated regions [no
entanglement with other regions] each individual region update is a
new state of that universe so computing new states is very easy. The
fact that it takes many updates to produce a large scale change in
the grid
John Ross wrote:
I have not dealt with Mercury's orbit.
This is one of the most important experimental confirmations of general
relativity. Were you even aware of it?
My theory can explain the double
slit results just as well as any other theory, better than most.
Quantitatively? Can yo
A discrete lattice structure would also violate Lorentz-symmetry, since the
mimimum distance would look different in different reference frames, and
there would be one preferred frame where the distance was maximized.
Jesse
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Ross <[EMAIL PROT
John Ross:
Are you kicking me off the site? What if it turns out that I am right?
Or are you all just interested in alternatives to the truth?
I don't have the power to kick you off, I'm just telling you this sort of
thing is off-topic here, so the polite thing to do would take the discussi
Are you kicking me off the site? What if it turns out that I am right?
Or are you all just interested in alternatives to the truth?
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subj
It's just my opinion.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:32 PM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark's prediction of neutrino masses
Exactly how did you come to merit being the judge of what is "weird"?
--
This comment shows that you have very little understanding of the basics of
relativity, and thus would not be in a position to say that your theory can
reproduce its successful predictions since you obviously haven't studied
them in any detail. In GR nothing can exceed the speed of light *locall
Exactly how did you come to merit being the judge of what is "weird"?
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'everything'"
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:20 PM
Subject: RE: Tegmark's prediction of neutrino masses
This
I have not dealt with Mercury's orbit. My theory can explain the double
slit results just as well as any other theory, better than most. I have
not tried to calculate the muon magnetic moment. My theory does however
predict that a muon is nothing more than a high energy electron that
has obtain
But look at your assumptions.
* 3 dimensions
* a discrete lattice structure: what sets the unit cell size
* face centre cubic - why this layout, and not one of the other
possible crystalline types
* what are these higher energy dances? It seems if you add energy to a
FCC crystal, you just
This sounds too weird for me.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:54 PM
To: everything
Subject: Tegmark's prediction of neutrino masses
Since we are discussing neutrinos, I thought it is fun to mention
antropic constraints on
Take a look at arXiv:hep-ex/0412060. It is an experimental resolution
of the Solar Neutrino problem, which I think would be required reading
for your interests.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:34:26PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Name one.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAI
Have you ever heard of the "Big Bang" and the period just after where
the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:49 PM
To: John Ross; 'Russell Standish'
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'
I don't believe it.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:45 PM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
Dear John,
There is replicated evidence that neutrinos have a non-zero mass. It
is
very
Give me your FAX number and I will fax you the photo.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:45 PM
To: John Ross; 'Russell Standish'
Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
I'm sure you saw so
Here is what the relevant part of your reference said:
"The KamLAND (Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector)
apparatus was purpose-built to catch a glimpse of these elusive
particles (see Fig. 5 on page 502). The detector is situated in the
centre of the largest Japanese island, Honshu
John Ross wrote:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully predicts
all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and
does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a
list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally
Since we are discussing neutrinos, I thought it is fun to mention antropic
constraints on neutrino masses derived by Tegmark, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304536
Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT), Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts), Levon Pogosian
(Tufts)
C
Dear John,
This theory, as far as I have researched it, has problem with Eotvos
experiements that consider particles that are sensitive to the weak force,
such as radioactive elements. Not all particles interact with neutrinos,
e.g. are sensituve to the weak force, and thus there should be
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are very
stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent:
I'm sure you saw something else :-)
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:40 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> I say a neutrino does not have
Dear John,
There is replicated evidence that neutrinos have a non-zero mass. It is
very small, but it is not zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: M
Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one
force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be
anything simpler?
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:06 PM
To: Hal Ruhl
Cc: everything
I say any massless particle that has a charge supporting a Coulomb force
must travel at the speed of light or faster because the Coulomb force
travels at the speed of light and a charged massless particle will be
repelled by its own Coulomb force.
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7050/full/436467a.html
-Original Message-
From: John Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Saibal Mitra' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:34:26 -0700
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
Name one.
-Original Me
I say a neutrino does not have a rest mass. It is a photon, like a very
high energy gamma ray photon. I have seen photos of a neutrino
collision in a neutrino trap. From the look of all the resulting
ionization tracks, it must have had a lot more energy than 40 ev. I say
the energy of neutrinos
Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
> mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
> is just a discrete point spa
Name one.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:27 PM
To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which a
To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully predicts
all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and
does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a
list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally.
-Original Mess
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies that
> usually go faster than the speed of light.)
Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachm
According to special relativity, anything with a positive rest mass
travels slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have been measured
with a positive rest mass, of around 40ev for the electron neutrino
IIRC, and higher values for the muon and tauon neutrinos.
I have never heard of either tardyo
Thanks for the response.
Your reference quotes Professor Feynman in part as follows:
"So that is the end of that theory. 'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one,
and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a
better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which are completely different from photons).
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject:
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxon
At 06:06 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people
are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a
tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary.
-Original Message-
From:
John Ross:
Thanks for the response.
Yes my theory involves a lot of math. Have you read my patent
application? For example, I have a quantitative description of Coulomb
forces acting inside photons. These integrated forces represent the
photon's energy.
Do these equations allow you to pred
Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to
regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are
just dances of these points
Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people
are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a
tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary.
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM
T
As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino
is a tardyon.
Hal Ruhl
At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are
basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the
speed of light. Only pho
I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are
basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the
speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 0
Right on Russell! Has anyone ever measured the spin of a neutrino?
Let's get back to basics? Let's consider the following which I assume
you fellows believe are true:
* Neutrino travel at the speed of light.
* Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies that
usually go faster
Hi Tom,
Le 06-oct.-05, à 19:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I've been looking a little into what there is on-line about
descriptive set theory, a relatively new field.
It seems that with the questions about cardinality and descriptions on
this list, that descriptive set theory (Polish spaces b
46 matches
Mail list logo
