,
however, did it to me.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Samiya Illias
wrote:
> Dear John,
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:25 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Dear Samiya, people ask the wrong questions.
>>
>
> Maybe, or maybe I need to study and reflect much more b
not reply my parting question anymore, which
pertains to your approval-or-not of the cruelties of Sharia law and whether
you accept ANY advancement of humanity over 1500 years at all.
With respect
John Mikes
PS I found on Google a picture with your name, a gorgeous bride-face.
I hope it is yours. JM
leave out the plants either!
And - all that is only at consideration of this small and negligible
mud-bullet within the company of that unremarkable small star (Sun?) in the
spiral halo of a galaxy
"us" being a 'latecomer rookie' with good potential to ruin our planet.
John Mik
Bruno and Kim:
what "SELF" would you consider in e.g. ants? if we realize the highly
merged (individualized?) *group-self* - the answer is different from taking
the present individual (simplified DOWN to functional minimum composition
units) *'ant'* and trying to assign a *'self*' to such *partial
(that sucks me).
---
On 3/19/2014 2:29 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, my hearing is so bad that I not only misunderstand(?) all
video-speak, I hardly even could HEAR gravity-wvaves (not to SEE(?) them).
I esteem old Isaac and when an apple fell on his head he has all my
sympathy. But
Liz:
I wrote some books, several ones have been also published (mostly
professional). Here is my experience - not a 'novel', but about one
Sci-Fi I wrote ~1990~ in 2(!) languages and tried to publish in the US
and in Central Europe with excellent publishing houses.
Both markets rejected it (withou
Spudboy - and Liz:
thanks for the approval - I wouldn't have resorted to Everett's MWI even in
1990 (found it restrictive to our lately human conclusions) nor to an
'infinite' universe (finiteless world is better in which we have
unrestricted (number and qualia) universes, So I proposed (my version
On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you
survive, and have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state
we might live some "phase transition" between different physical realms.
Obviously, we cannot get a physical
Stathis:
you wrote Aug.19:
*"What we know is that the brain can generate consciousness. The brain is
not a digital computer running a program, but if it can be simulated by
one, and if the simulation is conscious, and if the program can be "run" in
Platonia rather than on a physical computer, then
#x27;response to relations'. A process.
John M
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/20/2014 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Aug 2014, at 21:49, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Stathis:
> you wrote Aug.19:
>
> *"What we know is that
ote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Stathis:
>> you wrote Aug.19:
>>
>> *"What we know is that the brain can generate consciousness. The brain is
>> not a digital computer running a program, but if it can be simulated
in order to 'save', 'recall' and
apply).
How do we have any mentality that reflects into the output of our
*brain*(function)
(what I call the tool for such)?
John M
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/21/2014 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
widely used for 'computers' working in 'meanings and conclusions'
of the SO FAR deciphered domain of our thinking - translated into softwares
of that -still-embryonical tool of digital workings we call our existing
Turing machine. Beyond that "The Deluge".
I do not share t
ut to the "substrate" it's
>> running on. This seems to me a semantic confusion on the part of the
>> article writer.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 August 2014 07:52, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>> Wiki identifies the (non-artificial) base:
>>>
Russell: in your note
*Yes, it does. And that might explain the Fermi paradox. It doesn'trule
vastly distributed "hive minds", though. Perhaps our future is tobe
assilimated with the Borg.*
isn't there an *"out" * missing in the 2nd line after 'rule', or not?
John M
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014
rt that the chances are still better to find oneself in a universe
> where the life of civilisations is either nasty, brutish and short, or
> involves us evolving into an "Childhood's End" style Overmind.
>
>
> On 30 August 2014 08:25, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Ru
gt; Please could you explain what you think I'm saying, so I can attempt a
> sensible reply to your comment?
>
>
> On 31 August 2014 07:38, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Liz:
>> and HOW ON EARTH (verbatim: this one) would you know the entire World?
>> Not to ask: what would yo
Is it some untold truth that sooner, or later we all gonna die? Never
oocurred to me. What next? (Remember the discussion of the 2 fetuses
whether there is life after birth?)
I used to be a Ouijja-Board spiritist in college years (and later) ~70
years ago with friends, we did not cheat and never f
e aliens are AI?
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
>> aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
>> not build one themselves? (Come to t
ll.
And here come those "mundane" explanations you mentioned.
JohnM
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 2:21 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> YOU (anybody) cannot know what WAS before such 'colonization' and what
> transpired into us (the Earth)
After reading lots of repeats by otherwise smart people on the topic:
do we have a concensus on this list (narrow target enough?) about
some identification of * intelligence? * (forget Wiki!)
I proposed the* 'inter-lego'* classic, meaning to *"read"* (=understand
act out, apply, etc.) the meanin
Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants etc.
from the broad meaning of "language"? (They don't have a blabbermouth).
JM
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:13 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> *From:* everything-list@googl
t 8:06 PM, LizR wrote:
> Jeez, and I thought intelligence was the easy one. But yes, using the same
> definitions is important, a lot of megabytes have been wasted because
> people don't agree on what something means (I won't mention free
> will...oops.)
>
>
>
that darn 'intelligence').
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> First we'd have to figure out what "means" means. :-)
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 9/6/2014 1:48 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Jeez - Liz, correction!!!
> *( a lot of megabytes ha
Steve: and why is it so remarkable? Communication keeps the world churning,
inert singularities(?) would not survive. We (humans) imagine that our
"language" (maybe the most sophisticated WE KNOW ABOUT) - i s -
communication. I also question the difference spelled out (?) between
instinctive and d
Liz:
instinctive or learned? our instincts are not 'god-given', they developed
by learning.
Then you use my favorite put-down word: "adaptive".
I see no 'adaptation' as assigned to (evolutionary?) mutations. *How* would
a creature recognize benefit/disadvantage ratios to DECIDE what is good for
her
r the typo *b*illion vs.* m*illion. (80,000 in 80,000,000,000)
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:34 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10 September 2014 08:56, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Liz:
>> instinctive or learned? our instincts are not 'god-given', they developed
>>
off-list e-mail to stay off from the
usual misunderstandings by 'physical sciences' contemplations.
Best regards
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
TOPICAL sortiment.
John
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:34 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10 September 2014 08:56, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Liz:
>> instinctive or learned? our instincts are not 'god-given', they developed
>> by learning.
>>
>
> Yes, they
;
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Samiya,
>> thanks for the post - your interest by reading what I wrote. Your
>> URL-stuff is much more involved than being answered immediately, so please,
>> give
Dear Bruno,
although I donot want to participate in the discussion of Russel's paper,
may I pick out a Brent(?) par :
>
>
>
> *(BrM)...I don't understand. How is having DNA relevant to
> havingconsciousness? It is quite plausible that non-DNA-based forms
> areconscious (eg a computer running a sui
Quentin and other 'consciousness' imperatives:
does that mean that if someone (temporarily) loses consciousness (e.g. by
falling asleep, being anaesthesized, or blown on the head etc.) is
equivalent of dying? How are we "resurrected" from death when we wake up to
consciousness anewes?
John M
On We
Liz: This is the 'other' John. -
*They *(black holes and all other figments we 'believe' in our scientific
(physcalistic etc.) WORLD(s) - D O - exist, if not otherwise: in our mind
(whatever we call so).
* In Reality? *(First tell me, please, what you call Reality?)
.
I agree with Brent's den
Russell:
I don't find myself apt to even 'read' such math considerations, surely
beyond (above) my memories of the early forties when I last studied math.
INFINITY, however, is a NOUN formulated from an adverb 'infinite' in
improper linguistics in my opinion.
Infinite may point to characteristics
John, I promised not to ARGUE WITH YOU, so this is no argument either.,
Just a question: how do you know there is 'nothing else' beyond your
tronies? even if Brent may call them "excitations of a more fundamental
field" (excuse me, Brent). There may be more of such, more fundamental and
more than j
Brent: thank you so much for formulating some of my potential (and not yet
formulated) replies in a much better format than I could ever do. Chris
seems to be "in reverse" - describing SOME natural observations do not mean
Nature being created to FIT those observations (which are temporary,
anyway
find it remarkable that your Quran-quote extendes to geography discovered
way after (into?) Hedzhra also the cosmology formulated during the recent
times and chemistry of the last 100 years (ozon?) - maybe they are included
only in the paraphernalia.
I would love to read about the other animals as w
Liz: How 'bout forgeting the reactor for now and use 'loose' fusion energy
to push out hurricanes etc. from their balance?
No more Tsunamis? Ninjas?
THEN we may tame it into reactors for human use.
JM
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:43 PM, LizR wrote:
> I thought main problem with fusion is no-one can
Brent: who is - " W e " - ??
John M
Those answers you quoted are at a lower level of 'knowledge-base" than we
pretend to be at now.
Evolution?? a snapshot in the sequence we happen to witness. Do we KNOW
anything for sure about it (or anything else)? we THINK so. Well, we
don't..
Evidence i
t.
So I do not condone the topic "GOD" in our (science-based?) discussions.
Also:
"THEOLOGY" (science based on the Greek God-word Theos=God) is strange to me.
My wife said often: she envies the believers for their faith-based
mentality.
Agnostically yours
John Mikes
On Wed,
started to
"think" at the young age of 66.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 Oct 2014, at 21:42, John Mikes wrote:
>
> I read Bruno's ID about* theology* some times - never really comprehended
> it.
> I got the notion that he sorts und
Stathis, you wrote (among other things):
*Whether I find it satisfactory or not is a different question. The point I
was making is that people who find it satisfactory express this belief idea
by claiming that consciousness does not exist. *
IMO if not otherwise, it DOES exist in our 'minds' (th
JohnKC:
do you believe that IF the fixation on our embryonic digital machine of a
'bit' of info can be measured in units of our physical figment system, does
INDEED C A US E (create) that information?
Otherwise the calculation is not much different from observing a color.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014
Liz: I should object to the subject. How can Islm be GENERALIZED with their
differences among their own shades?
IS happily chops off Islamic heads if their sentiments diverge. Shia-s
Sunnis are warring for 15 centuries and I would not
volunteer counting the diverse shade-differences ('shady'?)
JM
Brent, these guys are SO smart! They even knew how to convert infinity
into a definitely lucrative career with awards and stuff.
You know I am a layman - even forgot the 'stuff' of my Ph.D. and D.Sc. and
am proudly agnostic.
Of 'infinity' I lately wrote: I accept the adjective (and adverb?)
inf
my 1st 1/2
century, until I
learned to "think" better - for the 2nd half.
I am glad my note triggered you into participating on this list, usually
discussing more
exciting (scientific?) terms than those godforsaken religious topics we get
lately.
Best regards
John Mikes Ph.D. (chem), D
*
*(Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the
microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter.) *
'Microscopic to what? to our human sizes? to the sub-Planck, or the
galaxy-size extensions?
Again my agnostic views: who knows what "worlds" do exist in qu
Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, so
you can decry a 'possibility' of such?
Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?
JM
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sent
said that, you, from my point of view-made
> your point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why not
> go for the highest hanging fruit?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Mikes
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
> Subject:
I like to be on the lighter side with my posts.
Have fun
John Mikes
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:57 AM, wrote:
> All well taken dude, but what you gleaned was available to the author of
> the post peripheral vision the other side of a large living room or a small
> garden. If you'd actu
te:
> On 7 November 2014 09:33, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> BTW I like to be on the lighter side with my posts.
>>
>
> Come to the dark side!
>
> Join us.don't be afraid...
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
oing science, be it
>> financially supported,
>> or just societally rewarding, I was active in 'that' domain for my 1st
>> 1/2 century, until I
>> learned to "think" better - for the 2nd half.
>>
>> I am glad my note triggered you into parti
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Samiya Illias
wrote:
> John,
> Your explanation of communication of apparently 'non-living' bodies is
> interesting. Lately, I've been contemplating on a verse (
> http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=22&verse=18) which speaks
> of WHOEVER is in the hea
d progress by showing them wrong? so we may 'believe'
what is proven wrong - only?
Then again
John Mikes :
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
> Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contac
Brent: how about functional relations? are they included into 'ontology'?
(I evade the "o" ref. whenever I can, because it relates to our present
inventory leaving out the influence of the vast uknown/unknowable
contributing to our know world).
BTW what I am asking is part of the Aris-Total (the to
s to become democratic.
So: P E A C E !
I propose to let our beloved friend be happy in her devoted belief - I
learned from her.
John Mikes who tried several avenues of 'beliefs'.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:55 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 23:20, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
is the only 'faith' I carry. And - at 93 - I do not experiment with
new avenues for 'life'.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 14 November 2014 11:40, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Liz, I hope you do not want to mix Friedrich Nietzsche into this
>> b
Dear Russell,
I try to be polite and smooth in my communications not only with you. Here
a question emerges in my mind: how diffrent is your perception of the MV
(and the arising of such VERY human connotations) from the concept of 'GOD"
in religious minds?
Is the Schroedinger equation stuff diffe
Brent: you beautifully describe the *"...**arbitrarily many possible
histories and different possible starting points. ..." - *all within human
speculation and within the limited 'model' of the - so far -
KNOWABLE inventory of our (scientific?) world(view). Entropy (any form of)
is part of such. BH
Play with words? OK with me. Just kindly circumscribe a "measure of
intelligence" (including, of course, a definition of Intelligence you
prefer).
Am I 2.5 times more intelligent *than you*, or are you same *than me*?
I still prefer the 'inter-lego' heritage, to be *mental* enough to READ
between t
Or: the MWI of my NARRATIVE; as in the Plenitude's infinite equilibration
(more than symmetry) 'similars' get to close for an equilibrated comfort,
the formed knots(?) expose some complexity (forbidden!) that dissipates as
it forms, YET in the process form a (transitional - complex?) world -
callab
Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had long
ago her own ideas abou the "zookeeper" syndrom: we are kept here safe for
SOME purpose *They* know, *We* don't. When we finished our usefulness it is
out with us, as long as we are useful (unidentified) for THEM, we live.
Th
Richard:
I enjoyed your chickenfoot reply, YET cannot subscribe for it's expansion
to humans:
GROUPS od humans seem to be more stupid than any level immaginable.;
Well, that much for our kind.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> It may
Not being prone to any Nobel prizes, I watch them pretty objectively.
Alfred Nobel established it due to his biting conscience: he wanted to
eliminate ALL wars by inventing (and starting to manufacture) the stuff he
deemed too aggressive to let people wage wars in his future: a wholesale
production
Bruno, I can't help it: I liked Richard's interjection. Arithmetics (even
in your fundamental vision - I suppose) needs 'human logic' to propagate
etc., no matter how the elements may be thought to pre-date humans. Does a
stone, or the 'root' of a plant, a microbe, or a cloud follow (evolve?
apply?
that all
those changes by the complexity-circumstances in Finnland would be
duplicated by the changes in Russia, so the 'doubled' (clone???) changes
into a different person. I leave it to the 'Everything' Friends to decide
whether that person feels still like the other one. I wouldn
details
of such 'mystery' when it becomes "PROCESS".
"HOW WE THINK" is very personal.
Respectfully
John Mikes
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> Yes, but you see, even the food we get from the resta
e) it is not likely that
> all
> > those changes by the complexity-circumstances in Finnland would be
> > duplicated by the changes in Russia, so the 'doubled' (clone???) changes
> > into a different person. I leave it to the 'Everything' Friends to decid
#x27;statistical'* dependent on the border-limits and the qualia we include
in identifying the counted items, to *'probability' *and some more.)
John Mikes
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> A first draft that I posted over the weekend. *
> *
>
>
nquisition. (Spinoza was luckier: he did not
have to go that far, he was only 'shunned' by his Jewish brethren.)
Is it wrong to try to KNOW (understand maybe) what we are talking about?
John Mikes
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:0
'as first addition'
TO the original listing.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> > The so called *Peace Prize* (maybe the No.1 as added to Nobel's
>> original list)
>>
>
> The Peace
Brent: I like to write insted of "we know" - "we THINK we know" and it goes
further: Bruno's "provable' - in many cases - applies evidences (to
'prove') from conventional science (reductionist figments) we still THINK
we know.
I don't think I use the term "T R U E" at all - in my agnosticism.
You h
for an Infinite Universal Machine. (I have imagination).
As for now I am not (yet?) asking for a patent on this system.
Have a good Halloween
John Mikes
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Oct 2013, at 21:03, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent: I like
ostic mind. The official
'professionals' don't like lay ideas penetrate their privileged fields.
John Mikes - (classic) polymer scientist - ret.
(As a European immigrant in the US I said several time that I am an African
American, the ancestors of whom emigrated from Africa and I came
I read in Elain Morgan's (Oxford UK) "Aquatic Ape" book an enjoyable
comparison between human characteristic and those of pigs.
It is not about hybridization at all. Enjoyable reading stuff.
(The book is quite different from th recent denigration of the 'topic' into
the mermaids and creationist abe
Craig and Telmo:
Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or
rejecting).
What else is in "thinking" involved? I would like to know, because I have
no idea.
John Mikes
On Thu, Oct
ousness is something different from what's going on
indeed. Explained by physics?
I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive -
at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to
time-period and is likely to change further in the fu
??)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Allegedly Stathis wrote:
>> *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
>> different if the conscious state is diff
no Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> >
>>
liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig:
*What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are
inorganic), what are organic atoms?*
*
*
What are 'atoms'?
(IMO models of our ignorance (oops: knowledge) about a portion of the
unknowable infinite explained during the latest some centuries of human
oking D O W N on problems of them.
John Mikes
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark wrote:
> Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a
> intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, and
> yet we get the following exchange between
As far as I - as a newspaper-reading stiff - know - it was Mitt Romney,
not exactly as it was implemented - asked for by the dying late Sen. Ed.
Kennedy at his last visit to Congress. Obama only kept the basic
(capitalist?) format to let insurers and other investors (and lawyers) reap
profit on th
Chris - Liz - Bruno Nov.6:
* Are we organisms; or ecosystems? *
Who cares? those are WORDS without proper meaning. OF COURSE WE ARE
complexities (without knowing what they are indeed) and we follow the
partial list of information we so far received.
Try to figure it as "nations" (countries?) i
Bruno wrote No.6:
*You have missed the discovery of the universal machine. *
Was it a discovery, or an invention? Is thereO N E *discovered* machine
for studying, or we just imagine how it should behave?
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 06 Nov 2013, at 13:48,
Bruno, could you kindly tell me how could I find a universal machine? (No
joke).
I would LOVE to listen to them.
John M
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 06 Nov 2013, at 21:31, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno wrote No.6:
> *You have missed the discovery o
On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and
that's the case today.
There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical
problem. Being much wealthier than oth
One more remark:
the " H O N E S T " heirs? super-rich they may be? Do you find an honestly
accumulated heirloom to inherit? Did they work productively/honestly to be
'rich'?
JM
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wro
ticism is based on: The only thing we know is "We
Don't".
The rest is 'science' etc. we keep talking about. Belief, doubt, Nobel
Prizes, etc.
(And maybe: Bruno's "numbers"? applied by his (Loeb's?) universal
machine).
John Mikes
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at
needs is fascism, socialism, or religion.
Be careful with your words: they are mostly meaningless substitutes.
John M.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Ther
PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 1:06 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno and Brent:
>
> *Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?*
> (BTW: I agree perfectly with your position).
>
> I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-control
> a
Liz wrote: (and I try to interject my remarks in plain lettering)
*"Sequence is determinative because that's how the universe works. *
I would say: "how WE explain the workings of the universe" (- rather
Multiverse).
* Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day
to da
Dear LIZ:
More than ~2 million peer-reviewed articles approved the Bible stories
beween 1599 and 2010. We call that 'religon'. (Numbers!!!) Does that make
them true?
Fossil fuel will not neccesarily run out: nobody will use them after our
demise.
And for nukes? I would say: O N L Y fusion!
The '
Telmo and other 'experts':
why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in huge
Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The high
pressure ultra-clean steam from a deepened modification of the exhausted
oil wells may provide much much more energy than to
Russell wrote:
*For all the arguments pro and con nuclear fission, including animpassioned
speech by a 16 year old last night to a UN Youth Voicecompetition, what
never seems to be discussed is the elephant in theroom of how much uranium
resources we have. IIUC, if all fossil fuelpower pl
extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for
pumping DOWN the
ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the
OTHER to ascend
the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ.
JOhn Mikes
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 15 November 2
gt; On 15 November 2013 11:39, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Telmo and other 'experts':
>> why does nobody even mention the geothermic energy app - available in
>> huge Q-s and so far tapped only in (literalily) 'superficial' usage. The
>> high pressu
.
Ignorance is not a good argument for not considering (and asking).
John
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> > Telmo:
> > unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is
rote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:33 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
>
>
nto
> the spinning turbine. If you used the steam from the well head you would be
> replacing turbines every year or two.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes
> *Sent:* Satu
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> > Dear Telmo, oil wells went down deeper than previously estimated as
> > feasible. Techniques are evolving.
> > If 2, 0r 5 pipes are inadequate in transport capacity, use more. Ask the
> > engineers - I also claim
201 - 300 of 1158 matches
Mail list logo
