Re: Gravity waves

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:33:51 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves 
>>> of light show offsets due to different path lengths. So this seems to be a 
>>> differential distortion of *space *as the wave passes. So what has 
>>> *time* got to do with the phenomenon? AG
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> The gravity wave changes the *time* it takes for light to go down those 
>> different paths, that's how we know the length i
>> ​n​
>> *space* must have changed because the one thing that nothing can do, not 
>> even a gravity wave, is change the speed of light in a vacuum.
>> ​ So its best not to think of space and time as 2 seperate things, there 
>> is just spacetime.  ​
>>
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> The metric components that vary are the spatial parts of the metric. In 
> the weak field limit the metric may be written as g_{ab} = η_{ab} + h_{ab}, 
> where η_{ab} is the flat spacetime metric the h_{ab} are the perturbation 
> terms on the flat space metric. The elements h_{11} = h_{22} and h_{12} = 
> h_{21} are the + and x polarization directions of the helicity = 2 
> field-wave. Then for technical reasons one takes the traceless part of this 
> metric and runs it through the Einstein field equations. Since the field is 
> weak these field equations are linear and the wave equation is a standard 
> EM-like wave equation. 
>
> LC
>

*I was going to post that since the metric field is a function of space and 
time, and we can speak of space-time, the same can be said of any field 
dependent on space and time, such as the EM field. AG *

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gravity waves

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:33:51 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM,  
> wrote:
>
> For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves 
>> of light show offsets due to different path lengths. So this seems to be a 
>> differential distortion of *space *as the wave passes. So what has *time* 
>> got to do with the phenomenon? AG
>>
>
> ​
> The gravity wave changes the *time* it takes for light to go down those 
> different paths, that's how we know the length i
> ​n​
> *space* must have changed because the one thing that nothing can do, not 
> even a gravity wave, is change the speed of light in a vacuum.
> ​ So its best not to think of space and time as 2 seperate things, there 
> is just spacetime.  ​
>
>
> John K Clark
>

The metric components that vary are the spatial parts of the metric. In the 
weak field limit the metric may be written as g_{ab} = η_{ab} + h_{ab}, 
where η_{ab} is the flat spacetime metric the h_{ab} are the perturbation 
terms on the flat space metric. The elements h_{11} = h_{22} and h_{12} = 
h_{21} are the + and x polarization directions of the helicity = 2 
field-wave. Then for technical reasons one takes the traceless part of this 
metric and runs it through the Einstein field equations. Since the field is 
weak these field equations are linear and the wave equation is a standard 
EM-like wave equation. 

LC

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Positive AI

[Telmo Menezes]

Sure! Things that generate interesting images, sounds or videos.

One of my favorite simple ideas is to use genetic programming (an AI
approach based on pseudo-Darwinian evolution of computer programs --
it's much simpler than it sounds) to evolve functions that define
images, for example by defining three functions:
red(x, y)
green(x, y)
blue(x, y)

Then use human choices to evolve the images. By adding a t parameter
you get videos. Here's a version of this idea:
https://gold.electricsheep.org/

There's countless cool ideas that apply to image and sound. Search for
"computational creativity", "procedural art" and look into the field
of "artificial life" in general. They tend to have the coolest fun
ideas.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:48 PM, K E N O  wrote:
> Nice! Can you imagine something totally useless as an application of AI?
> What would you creative if you just wanted to have fun with AI?
>
> K E N O
>
>
> Am 12.01.2018 um 14:43 schrieb Telmo Menezes :
>
> Hi Lara,
>
> My view is that, as with all scientific theories and technologies, AI
> is morally neutral. it has the potential for both extremely good and
> extremely nasty practical applications. That being said, the unusual
> thing about AI is that it has the potential to generate *something
> that replaces us*. Some people say that it could happen in the next
> few decades, some people say that it will never happen. I don't think
> anyone knows.
>
> Leaving that more crazy question aside, and focusing on your question
> in relation to what can be done with AI right now: I think that the
> negativity that currently surrounds the technology says more about our
> species and our moment in culture than AI itself. You ask for positive
> AI goals:
>
> - Assisting and replacing health-care professionals, making
> health-care cheaper for everyone and more widely available to people
> in poor and remote regions;
> - Enabling advanced prosthetics: assisting people with sensory
> impairments, mitigating the consequences of ageing and so on;
> - Freeing us from labor, taking care of relatively simple and
> repetitive tasks such as growing food, collecting trash etc.
> - Self-driving cars can be great: they can reduce risk (traveling by
> car is one of the most dangerous means of transportation) and they can
> help the environment. If I can call a car from a pool of available
> cars to come pick me and drive me somewhere, a much more rational use
> of resources can be achieved and cities can become more livable
> (instead of being cluttered with cars that are parked most of the
> time);
> - Assisting scientific research, proving theorems, generating theories
> from data that are too counter-intuitive for humans (a bit of
> self-promotion: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06284);
> - AI can be used to solve problems quite creatively, check this out:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna;
> - Personal assistants, but not the kind that are connected to some
> centralized corporate brain -- the kind that really works for you
> (example: https://mycroft.ai/)
> - etc, etc etc
>
> It is true that most funding currently goes towards three goals:
> - How to make you see more ads and buy more stuff;
> - How to let those in powers know more about what everyone is
> doing/saying/thinking in private, so that they can have even more
> power;
> - How to build weapons with it.
>
> This is our usual human stupidity at work. Stupidity tends to be
> self-destructive. I think the entire advertisement angle is already
> showing signs of collapse. There is hope. Focus on the first list.
>
> Cheers,
> Telmo.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Lara  wrote:
>
> Dear Everything,
>
> I have been working on my bachelor project with the topic Artificial
> Intelligence. Even though I have decided I want to create an AI-something to
> support an everyday activity, I am lost. I have done a lot of research and
> most of the time I am very critical: A lot of negative power is given to
> algorithms (like those big data algorithms deciding what we see online),
> some inventions could be very dangerous (self-driving cars) and most of the
> time inventions could be cool, if we ignored the evil people behind them.
> But for my bachelor I want to create a positive AI-thing for everyday life
> (with a prototype).
>
> Maybe some of you have a good idea, a direction or just a thought for me to
> get further with my project. Is there even a point in positive AI?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Lara
>
> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit 

Re: Positive AI

[K E N O]

Nice! Can you imagine something totally useless as an application of AI? What 
would you creative if you just wanted to have fun with AI?

K E N O

> Am 12.01.2018 um 14:43 schrieb Telmo Menezes :
> 
> Hi Lara,
> 
> My view is that, as with all scientific theories and technologies, AI
> is morally neutral. it has the potential for both extremely good and
> extremely nasty practical applications. That being said, the unusual
> thing about AI is that it has the potential to generate *something
> that replaces us*. Some people say that it could happen in the next
> few decades, some people say that it will never happen. I don't think
> anyone knows.
> 
> Leaving that more crazy question aside, and focusing on your question
> in relation to what can be done with AI right now: I think that the
> negativity that currently surrounds the technology says more about our
> species and our moment in culture than AI itself. You ask for positive
> AI goals:
> 
> - Assisting and replacing health-care professionals, making
> health-care cheaper for everyone and more widely available to people
> in poor and remote regions;
> - Enabling advanced prosthetics: assisting people with sensory
> impairments, mitigating the consequences of ageing and so on;
> - Freeing us from labor, taking care of relatively simple and
> repetitive tasks such as growing food, collecting trash etc.
> - Self-driving cars can be great: they can reduce risk (traveling by
> car is one of the most dangerous means of transportation) and they can
> help the environment. If I can call a car from a pool of available
> cars to come pick me and drive me somewhere, a much more rational use
> of resources can be achieved and cities can become more livable
> (instead of being cluttered with cars that are parked most of the
> time);
> - Assisting scientific research, proving theorems, generating theories
> from data that are too counter-intuitive for humans (a bit of
> self-promotion: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06284);
> - AI can be used to solve problems quite creatively, check this out:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna;
> - Personal assistants, but not the kind that are connected to some
> centralized corporate brain -- the kind that really works for you
> (example: https://mycroft.ai/)
> - etc, etc etc
> 
> It is true that most funding currently goes towards three goals:
> - How to make you see more ads and buy more stuff;
> - How to let those in powers know more about what everyone is
> doing/saying/thinking in private, so that they can have even more
> power;
> - How to build weapons with it.
> 
> This is our usual human stupidity at work. Stupidity tends to be
> self-destructive. I think the entire advertisement angle is already
> showing signs of collapse. There is hope. Focus on the first list.
> 
> Cheers,
> Telmo.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Lara  wrote:
>> Dear Everything,
>> 
>> I have been working on my bachelor project with the topic Artificial
>> Intelligence. Even though I have decided I want to create an AI-something to
>> support an everyday activity, I am lost. I have done a lot of research and
>> most of the time I am very critical: A lot of negative power is given to
>> algorithms (like those big data algorithms deciding what we see online),
>> some inventions could be very dangerous (self-driving cars) and most of the
>> time inventions could be cool, if we ignored the evil people behind them.
>> But for my bachelor I want to create a positive AI-thing for everyday life
>> (with a prototype).
>> 
>> Maybe some of you have a good idea, a direction or just a thought for me to
>> get further with my project. Is there even a point in positive AI?
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> Lara
>> 
>> --
>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 

Re: Gravity waves

[K E N O]

I guess this visualisation is at least fine to imagine how light has to travel 
through spacetime: 
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2015/09/spacetime_curvature/15576375-1-eng-GB/Spacetime_curvature.jpg
 
.


> Am 12.01.2018 um 19:33 schrieb John Clark :
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM,  > wrote:
> 
> For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves of 
> light show offsets due to different path lengths. So this seems to be a 
> differential distortion of space as the wave passes. So what has time got to 
> do with the phenomenon? AG
> 
> ​The gravity wave changes the time it takes for light to go down those 
> different paths, that's how we know the length i​n​ space must have changed 
> because the one thing that nothing can do, not even a gravity wave, is change 
> the speed of light in a vacuum.​ So its best not to think of space and time 
> as 2 seperate things, there is just spacetime.  ​
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gravity waves

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM,  wrote:

For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves of
> light show offsets due to different path lengths. So this seems to be a
> differential distortion of *space *as the wave passes. So what has *time*
> got to do with the phenomenon? AG
>

​
The gravity wave changes the *time* it takes for light to go down those
different paths, that's how we know the length i
​n​
*space* must have changed because the one thing that nothing can do, not
even a gravity wave, is change the speed of light in a vacuum.
​ So its best not to think of space and time as 2 seperate things, there is
just spacetime.  ​


John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gravity waves

[Brent Meeker]

The spacetime metric field.

Brent

On 1/12/2018 1:10 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

What exactly is waving? Space-time? What is that? TIA, AG


--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gravity waves

[agrayson2000]

For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves of 
light show offsets due to different path lengths. So this seems to be a 
differential distortion of *space *as the wave passes. So what has *time* 
got to do with the phenomenon? AG

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, K E N O wrote:
>
> For all those speaking German: This is a quite sophisticated podcast 
> episode about gravitational waves: 
> https://raumzeit-podcast.de/2016/02/18/rz061-gravitationswellenastronomie/
> .
>
> Am Freitag, 12. Januar 2018 10:10:52 UTC+1 schrieb agrays...@gmail.com:
>>
>> What exactly is waving? Space-time? What is that? TIA, AG
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Positive AI

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Lara,

My view is that, as with all scientific theories and technologies, AI
is morally neutral. it has the potential for both extremely good and
extremely nasty practical applications. That being said, the unusual
thing about AI is that it has the potential to generate *something
that replaces us*. Some people say that it could happen in the next
few decades, some people say that it will never happen. I don't think
anyone knows.

Leaving that more crazy question aside, and focusing on your question
in relation to what can be done with AI right now: I think that the
negativity that currently surrounds the technology says more about our
species and our moment in culture than AI itself. You ask for positive
AI goals:

- Assisting and replacing health-care professionals, making
health-care cheaper for everyone and more widely available to people
in poor and remote regions;
- Enabling advanced prosthetics: assisting people with sensory
impairments, mitigating the consequences of ageing and so on;
- Freeing us from labor, taking care of relatively simple and
repetitive tasks such as growing food, collecting trash etc.
- Self-driving cars can be great: they can reduce risk (traveling by
car is one of the most dangerous means of transportation) and they can
help the environment. If I can call a car from a pool of available
cars to come pick me and drive me somewhere, a much more rational use
of resources can be achieved and cities can become more livable
(instead of being cluttered with cars that are parked most of the
time);
- Assisting scientific research, proving theorems, generating theories
from data that are too counter-intuitive for humans (a bit of
self-promotion: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06284);
- AI can be used to solve problems quite creatively, check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna;
- Personal assistants, but not the kind that are connected to some
centralized corporate brain -- the kind that really works for you
(example: https://mycroft.ai/)
- etc, etc etc

It is true that most funding currently goes towards three goals:
- How to make you see more ads and buy more stuff;
- How to let those in powers know more about what everyone is
doing/saying/thinking in private, so that they can have even more
power;
- How to build weapons with it.

This is our usual human stupidity at work. Stupidity tends to be
self-destructive. I think the entire advertisement angle is already
showing signs of collapse. There is hope. Focus on the first list.

Cheers,
Telmo.


On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Lara  wrote:
> Dear Everything,
>
> I have been working on my bachelor project with the topic Artificial
> Intelligence. Even though I have decided I want to create an AI-something to
> support an everyday activity, I am lost. I have done a lot of research and
> most of the time I am very critical: A lot of negative power is given to
> algorithms (like those big data algorithms deciding what we see online),
> some inventions could be very dangerous (self-driving cars) and most of the
> time inventions could be cool, if we ignored the evil people behind them.
> But for my bachelor I want to create a positive AI-thing for everyday life
> (with a prototype).
>
> Maybe some of you have a good idea, a direction or just a thought for me to
> get further with my project. Is there even a point in positive AI?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Lara
>
> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[David Nyman]

On 12 Jan 2018 00:36, "Brent Meeker"  wrote:



On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote:



On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker"  wrote:



On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote:



On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker"  wrote:



On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:

If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the
characterisation of the physical environment as encoding 'information'
independent of interpretation. This objection can be dealt with by the
reversal,


Can it?  Isn't it just *assumed* that the computational relations, or
number relations, encode information?  That was my objection that the MGA
was missing the necessity of an environment for its computation to be
"about".  Bruno has generally agreed with this and said it just means that
the environment (i.e. physics) is part of what is realized in the
computations of the UD.  But notice that this doesn't answer a Tallis like
objection that "computation is nothing like experience" and "information is
nothing like environment".


But the argument implies that the epistemic entailments of computation,


That a computation has epistemic entailments is an assumption that it's a
computation *about* something.  The argument *assumes* that so far as I can
see.


I think you're right in part, to the extent that Theatatus's criterion of
knowledge, which includes the assumption of the (tautological) truth of the
belief, is indeed an explicit axiom.


Aren't you jumping over the question?  If I have a set of diophantine
equations that instantiate a universal computer and they have an integer
that is a solution, that's a computation.  But why is it "about anything"?
which parts of this process constitute knowledge or belief?  What
proposition is true?


I thought I was answering the question. Theatatus's criterion is modelled
as the conjunction of believing in p and the axiom that p is indeed the
case *in some relevant sense*. IOW true, justified belief. As to what is a
proposition and what it may be about, since logic is fully emulable in
​'universal'
computation,
​in the limit ​
it might be about most anything whatsoever I suppose.
​That apart,

​as Bruce remarked, if we ​
apply a reductionist approach the criticism can be levelled that, both its
very status as a proposition in the first place and the interpretation of
what it is about, are
​by implication *​
external
​*​
to the computation itself.
​But s
ince ex hypothesi this cannot be the case without infinite regress, we are
confronted with the idea that the truth (or 'epistemic entailment')
putatively asserted by the proposition
​*​
supplies its own interpretation
​*​
.

If this is not very intuitive at the level of the toy model, it might be
​a little ​
more so if we
​try to ​
generalise the idea in
​something like ​
the way I suggested. The physical constitution and activity of a brain, in
this way of thinking, would
​then ​
be construed as the manifestation in appearance of some complex of
computations that simultaneously tracks, both the requisite physical
dispositions relating the brain and its wider environment, and the
propositional attitudes of a 'mental agent'.
​(​
By the way, I would be sympathetic to Dennett's idea that this would not
​be expected to ​
play out in the manner of any simplistic notion of a 'Cartesian theatre'.
​)​

Then a propositional attitude attributable to the mental agent might be "I
see an apple" or "I am in intense agony". What the proposition is 'about'
is now
​in terms of
the agent's apprehension of its own state, implying an epistemic truth
​*​
about itself
​*, or perhaps more broadly, about the boundaries of its own physical and
temporal situation​
, one that i
​s ​
​by the same token
not directly communicable. In either case this attitude would necessarily
​have to be
 expressed both physically and epistemically
​; th
e physical express
​ion​
in behaviour, both gross and subtle (e.g. neurocognition); and the
(tautological
​ly truthful​
)
​entailment
 in the fact that the agent in question
​*​
does indeed see an apple or is indeed in intense agony
​*​
, the latter supplying the
​ otherwise​
missing 'interpretation' of the former.
​

As I suggested to Bruce, if one considers the converse, what would it imply
if I believed that, though you were not in any sense lying, your assertion
of such things was nonetheless false? That it only 'seems as if' they are
true, or that their truth is an 'illusion'? By the way, this is apparently
what the likes of Patricia Churchland urge us to take seriously - that we
are nothing other than zombie mechanisms, whose putative mentalistic
assertions are supernumerary to any fundamental understanding of reality.
At the same time o
ne must be careful not to be misled into the idea that
​'​
truth
​'​
here implies that the agent possesses
​infallibility
 with respect to
the wider *implications*
​or consequences ​
of its immediate 

Re: Gravity waves

[K E N O]

For all those speaking German: This is a quite sophisticated podcast 
episode about gravitational waves: 
https://raumzeit-podcast.de/2016/02/18/rz061-gravitationswellenastronomie/.

Am Freitag, 12. Januar 2018 10:10:52 UTC+1 schrieb agrays...@gmail.com:
>
> What exactly is waving? Space-time? What is that? TIA, AG
>

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Gravity waves

[agrayson2000]

What exactly is waving? Space-time? What is that? TIA, AG

-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.