On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content have
been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
fluctuations
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-)
(Sorry!)
I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's
On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
Correctly, I assume.
and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
Einstein-Rosen
Speaking of suicide, God etc...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html
As Richard Dawkins asked, do they still get the virgins?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
climate change
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
Correctly, I assume.
and more
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
Correctly, I assume.
More accurately
On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-)
Jesse,
I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular coordinate
system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both equations of
the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin B,
relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it
Jesse,
If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since
you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's
The title of this article is a bit of a reach.
But these lab results regarding self-organizing
may be of interest to this list. Richard
Human brain artificially created in laboratory
Published on Mon, Feb 10, 2014 by livia rusu
Post filled in: Genetics, Mind Brain
Human embryonic stem cells
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the
On 11 Feb 2014, at 00:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 10 February 2014 22:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can't know that either. If you are conscious, you might well
become a
zombie after the substitution, if comp is false for example. I
cannot
know
for sure that comp is
On 11 Feb 2014, at 01:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against
step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to
On 11 Feb 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him,
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce real
universe results.
All this information is ultimately quantized into
Jesse,
But I just gave you an empirical method to determine which separate
observer clock times coincide with the same p-time, and I gave nearly a
half dozen examples of actually doing that.
And YOU were the one that suggested you assume some of my assumptions and
tell me whether my other
On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote:
Hi Liz:
I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to rate I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system
that forces natural ecocide that also makes the rate at which life
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/9/2014 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Feb 2014, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/8/2014 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
An epiphenomenalist would say
Jesse,
OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was
looking for them in the link you gave.
I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even gave
an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a
gravitational field and his clock
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 3:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The laws of physics or arithmetic makes it possible for you to
express your
point, but the content of your post is explained by your
awareness of the
questions, your taste for the field, your
On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 3:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The laws of physics or arithmetic makes it possible for you to express your
point, but the content of your post is explained by your awareness of the
Edgar, you wanted me to address your examples so I will, although I thought
it better to hold off on this until we settled the question of whether the
basic assumption you seem to be making in case #1 leads to contradictions.
Given your recent post at
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:27, LizR wrote:
On 10 February 2014 01:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So with - and f we can define all connectors.
Is there a connector (like , V, -, ...) such that all
connectors can be defined from it?
You just said that ... oh do you mean without
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:07:07 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce
Jesse,
The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes
different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different
relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background
independent of any PARTICULAR frame that all frames are true within..
This
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase your
condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical
gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A
and B. I already gave several examples.
In this case both A's
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:35 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation
of consciousness is perfectly
On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in
different times and places are definitely assumptions. They could turn
out
On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2014 7:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb
On 11 Feb 2014, at 05:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with
it! :-)
(Sorry!)
I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before
it's
likely to make predictions
Jesse,
Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase
your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion
Darn, t' NOT t''!
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:37:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not
On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
the quark-gluon
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My question was what is the unique consistent definition of the 1p
after the duplication has been performed?.
In the 3-1 view, that does not exist,
Then the 1p is of no use to anyone and neither is the 3-1 view
I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes more
sense.:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
So the take away is that :
1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And
that information consists only of
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase
your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical
gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes
different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different
relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
String theory based on
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 18:40,
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an
event *of that type* occurred. - Thomas Nagel
This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why
there is any such type of
On 12 February 2014 00:38, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
have been extracted,
On 12 February 2014 05:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl halr...@alum.syracuse.edu wrote:
Hi Liz:
I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to rate I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that
On 12 February 2014 05:29, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
Richard:
I salute every step forward, trhey may (or may not) further our cognitive
and operative advancement. This work is in the line of a positive trend -
maybe overestimated in its efficiency - as most are. If they wll be able to
'evolve' smarter individuals, I place all my blessings on their
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 00:38, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The Vostok ice core data,
ASK A PHYSICIAN. I went to med school until I was too sick to continue.
But I learned enough to never ASK A PHYSICIAN.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard:
I salute every step forward, trhey may (or may not) further our cognitive
and operative
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an
event *of that type* occurred. - Thomas Nagel
This quote applies to my
On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 00:41,
On 12 February 2014 10:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from
the atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at
which point we'll
Hi Bruno and Liz:
I think it is not fruitful to look further at the words natural and
unnatural. They seem to carry too much baggage. I should not have used
them.
I suggest looking at my post I pointed to:
On 12 February 2014 06:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Smullyan's brother, if I remember well, told to the little Raymond
--'tonight, I will surprise you, I promise!'
Little Raymond waited all the night, but got nothing, so at morning he
complained to his brother I thought you
Jesse,
Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said I'm pretty
sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two clocks meet
at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that point must be
simultaneous in p-time). That is NOT true. Only if there is no
Richard,
I agree. As I recall physicians and hospitals are the 4th leading cause of
DEATH in the US.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:52:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
ASK A PHYSICIAN. I went to med school until I was too sick to continue.
But I learned enough to never ASK A PHYSICIAN.
Richard,
And that must be rejected logically as well...
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:03:21 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not
comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named
Chris.
I think Clark should elaborate on
Yeah The Quiet Earth is great.and was made in New Zealand, to boot!
On 12 February 2014 13:17, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
the sense required for this argument. I think consciousness depends of
consciousness *of* an
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said I'm
pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two
clocks meet at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in
S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.
The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of
X1*\X1, (and even that supposes that Z captures all observations,
which I
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
the sense required for
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Instantaneously pause has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age
On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
the sense required for this argument. I think
On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Jesse,
Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
The question is what clock times of various observers correspond to a same
point of p-time?
On 12 February 2014 14:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12 February 2014 15:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
The question is what
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 10:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from
the atmosphere, and
On 12 February 2014 05:21, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in
different times and
On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR. The
Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles maintain
their connection.
I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality
In case my explanation isn't clear...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_inequality#Original_Bell.27s_inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles
maintain their
You'll have to explain what you mean. The spike for the PETM is very thin,
I can't tell exactly because the scale is too large but it looks to me as
if it's around the specified 0.2 Myr. (It's the little horizontal line
sticking out to the right, with an arrow pointing to it labelled PETM). On
the
Oops editing too fast, remove the last of.
On 12 February 2014 16:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
The Einstein-Rosen
On 2/11/2014 7:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 14:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed,
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bell's Inequality in my
On 2/11/2014 7:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2014
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
The question is
87 matches
Mail list logo
