Re: [Extropolis] What what would the US do if China seizes TSMC's chip fabs plants in Taiwan?

[Lawrence Crowell]

War has a way of breaking things up and destroying them. The plant would
doubtless look a bit like parts of Gaza right now. It would be useless.

LC

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 6:07 AM John Clark  wrote:

> *"A U.S. security publication claimed that the United States would have to
> destroy TSMC fabs if Taiwan is seized by China, as the country cannot allow
> the People's Republic to have access to some of the best semiconductor
> production capabilities in the world due to national security concerns."*
>
> *China seizing TSMC would be 'devastating' for U.S. economy, Commerce
> Secretary says*
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
>
> mst
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to extropolis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0jW2KSMhg5-9QQW2qd32tFMKxOoWWgQTammkv1hz7oZw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAAFA0qqAdMXe%3DiNdOx066ga7Gpz-18_gWKqBRjFj-7mR-00haQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Black Hole ringing

[Lawrence Crowell]

So far no evidence of classical hair in this.

LC

On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 2:38:23 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> Gravitational waves from mega black-hole collision reveal long-sought 
> ‘ringing’ 
>
>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ehs
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e417595-51fa-4a95-b7a9-413744e6ac62n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:23:48 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:45 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> There is plenty of direct evidence that quantum weirdness exists, even 
the father of the Copenhagen Interpretation Niels Bohr admitted that "*Anyone 
who is not shocked by Quantum theory does not understand it *". Something 
must be behind all that strangeness and whatever it is it must be odd, very 
very odd. Yes, many world's idea is ridiculous, but is it ridiculous enough 
to be true? If it's not then something even more ridiculous is. As for the 
Copenhagen interpretation, I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's 
incoherent, and if you ask 10 adherents what it's saying you'll get 12 
completely different answers, but they all boil down to "*just give up, 
don't even try to figure out what's going on*". But I think one must try.

 

* > I think that's very unfair to Bohr.  His basic observation was that we 
do science in a classical world of necessity.* 


Bohr was a great scientist but I think he was a lousy philosopher.  Bohr 
thought there was a mystical interface between quantum events and conscious 
awareness, some call it the "Heisenberg Cut", but neither Bohr nor 
Heisenberg could explain the mechanism behind this mysterious phenomenon 
nor could they say exactly, or even approximately, where the hell the 
dividing line between the classical world and the quantum world is. By 
contrast Many Worlds has no problem whatsoever explaining the mechanism 
behind the Heisenberg cut or where the dividing line is because the 
Heisenberg cut does not exist and there is no dividing line, everything is 
quantum mechanical including the entire universe.  I think this is the 
reason the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular among cosmologists 
than among scientists in general.


The Heisenberg cut is a weakness with the Copenhagen Interpretation. 
However, all interpretations of QM when chased down their rabbit holes lead 
to nests of problems that fail to close.

LC
 


 > *Only in a classical world can we make measurements and keep records 
that we can agree on.  *


But the Copenhagen adherents can't agree even among themselves what a 
"measurement" is or what a "record" means, but Many Worlds people are in 
agreement, all measurements are a change in a quantum state but a quantum 
change is not necessarily a measurement.   
  

> *when we study the microscopic world we must use quantum mechanics, but 
our instruments must be classical. *


We can pretend our instruments are classical, in our everyday life we can 
pretend that everything is classical, but we've known for nearly a century 
that is just a useful lie we tell ourselves because reality is not 
classical, it is quantum mechanical.   
 

*> You can treat a baseball as a quantum system composed of elementary 
particles; but your measurements on it must still give classical values. *


As I said before, you can live your entire life by pretending that 
classical physics is all there is and in fact billions of people have had 
successful lives doing so, but that doesn't make it true. In theory 
classical measurements can be exact, but quantum measurements cannot be 
even in theory. If we wish to study the fundamental nature of reality we're 
going to need to perform experiments with things when they are in very 
exotic conditions that we will never encounter in everyday life, and when 
we perform these difficult experiments we find the things get weird, very 
very weird, and that demands an explanation. And waving your hands and 
saying there is a Heisenberg cut is not an explanation.


* > Since the development of decoherence theory this boundary can be 
quantified in terms vanishing of cross-terms in a reduced density matrix. *


Forget theory, every time the precision of our quantum *EXPERIMENTS* 
improves the lower limit of this mythical boundary between the classical 
world and the quantum world gets larger, I think it's as large as the 
entire universe.  
 

> *What is left unexplained, in MWI as well as Copenhagen, is the 
instantiation of a random result with probability proportional to the 
diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix.*


If the concept of "probability" is to make any sense and not be paradoxical 
it must be a real number between 0 and 1, and all the probabilities in a 
given situation must add up to exactly 1. Gleason's theorem proved that 
given those restraints, probability can always be expressed by the density 
matrix, that is to say the Born Rule. So the real question is; 
Schrodinger's equation is completely deterministic so why do we need 
probability at all? The Copenhagen people have a range of answers to that 
question, some say Schrodinger's equation needs to be modified by adding a 
random element, but they can't agree on exactly what it should be, others 
say it is improper to even ask that question, but they can't agree among 
themselves exactly why it is improper.  Th

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 10:26:58 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

There seems to be a conflation between the multiple worlds of Everett and 
the eternal inflation of a multiverse.

Brent


Max Tegmark thinks there is a high level multiverse of this form involving 
MWI. The problem is that we will never be able to know, and MWI is an 
interpretation that is auxiliary to QM and really not necessary. 

LC
 


On 11/19/2023 4:49 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:


The real problem is that anything involving the multiverse, say some 
quantum field signature from the earliest quantum cosmology, is stretched 
by inflation into a red-shifted spectrum beyond measurability. The 
multiverse is consistent with inflationary cosmology, which is supported by 
data, but information about the multiverse may never be detected. 

LC 

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:58:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

*I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense 
<https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668> by 
Jacob 
Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter 
to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very polite 
letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have time 
to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
===


*Hello Professor Barandes *

*I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with interest 
and I have a few comments:*

*Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a 
proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *

*1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is 
clear about what it's saying. *
*2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental 
results. *
*3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave 
collapse theories like GRW do.*

*4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is 
because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's 
equation.   * 


*I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and such 
things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many 
worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are 
not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the 
multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You 
say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but 
then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher 
probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds 
there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not 
forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe 
splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps 
an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not 
interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it 
lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful 
probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though 
the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of 
points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out 
which part of the bell curve we're most likely on. *

*Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the multiverse 
really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of the idea 
that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds turns out to 
be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity plus an 
infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number. Even if there 
is only one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance away there 
must be a doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge number of 
quantum states your body could be in, that number is not infinite, but the 
universe is. * 


*And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of 
results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be 
based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's 
equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function 
collapsing. I would maintain that many worlds is bare-bones no-nonsense 
quantum mechanics with none of the silly bells and whistles that other 
theories stick on that do nothing but get rid of those  pesky other worlds 
that keep cropping up that they personally dislike for some reason. And 
since Everett's time other worlds do seem to keep popping up and in 
completely unrelated fields, such as string theory and inflationary 
cosmology. * 


*You also ask what a “rational observer” is and how they ought to behave, 
and place bets on future events, given their self-locating uncertainty. I 
agree with David

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:54 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> The entire purpose of a thought experiment is to help you understand 
something, if you replace the radioactive decay of an atom, which according 
to quantum mechanics is supposed to be random, an event without a cause, 
with a mechanical clock then I don't see how your modification of 
Schrodinger's cat helps anybody understand anything.  

 


* > I didn't replace the atom.  I connected a clock to the vial so there's 
a record or when it is broken.*


OK so now is the clock that exists in the 12:01 State, and the 12:02 and 
the 12:03 and the 12:04 and the... 12:59 state, and it doesn't snap into 
one particular state until you open the box. How was that better than the 
original experiment?   


 >> QBism certainly works, but I dismiss it because it's just "shut up and 
calculate" with a different name. 


* >When calculate the impact of two boxcars do you refuse to use the 
concept of inertia becasue there's no storybook about where it comes from? *


No of course not, and I'm not saying people shouldn't use shut up and 
calculate or its pseudonym "QBism", I'm just saying it's not a bad thing if 
somebody wants to look a little deeper into the nature of inertia, because 
the discovery of the Higgs field and the Higgs particle partially solves 
the mystery of inertia, at least it explains why quarks have mass and can 
explain about 1% of the mass of macroscopic objects, and that's a start. If 
people just give up we will never find any answers. 


I am not an upholder of quantum interpretations. QBism is though at least 
somewhat minimalist. 

LC
 


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

eqpmsgid/everything-list/e4c9a0a2-e4f3-4e50-8dd4-e414f6488220%40gmail.com 

.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b81d02f-d148-4780-afb9-ceda5f5dfc98n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Lawrence Crowell]

The real problem is that anything involving the multiverse, say some 
quantum field signature from the earliest quantum cosmology, is stretched 
by inflation into a red-shifted spectrum beyond measurability. The 
multiverse is consistent with inflationary cosmology, which is supported by 
data, but information about the multiverse may never be detected.

LC 

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:58:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> *I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense 
>  
> by Jacob 
> Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter 
> to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very polite 
> letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have time 
> to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
> ===
>
>
> *Hello Professor Barandes*
>
> *I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with interest 
> and I have a few comments:*
>
> *Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a 
> proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *
>
> *1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is 
> clear about what it's saying. *
> *2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental 
> results. *
> *3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave 
> collapse theories like GRW do.*
>
> *4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is 
> because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's 
> equation.  *
>
>
> *I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and such 
> things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many 
> worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are 
> not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the 
> multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You 
> say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but 
> then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher 
> probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds 
> there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not 
> forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe 
> splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps 
> an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not 
> interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it 
> lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful 
> probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though 
> the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of 
> points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out 
> which part of the bell curve we're most likely on.*
>
> *Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the multiverse 
> really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of the idea 
> that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds turns out to 
> be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity plus an 
> infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number. Even if there 
> is only one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance away there 
> must be a doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge number of 
> quantum states your body could be in, that number is not infinite, but the 
> universe is. *
>
>
> *And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of 
> results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be 
> based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's 
> equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function 
> collapsing. I would maintain that many worlds is bare-bones no-nonsense 
> quantum mechanics with none of the silly bells and whistles that other 
> theories stick on that do nothing but get rid of those  pesky other worlds 
> that keep cropping up that they personally dislike for some reason. And 
> since Everett's time other worlds do seem to keep popping up and in 
> completely unrelated fields, such as string theory and inflationary 
> cosmology.*
>
>
> *You also ask what a “rational observer” is and how they ought to behave, 
> and place bets on future events, given their self-locating uncertainty. I 
> agree with David Hume who said that "ought" cannot be derived from "is", 
> but "ought" can be derived from "want". So if an observer is a gambler that 
> WANTS to make money but is irrational then he is absolutely guaranteed to 
> lose all his money if he plays long enough, while a rational observer who 
> knows how to make use of continuous probabilities is guaranteed to make 
> money, or at least break even. Physicists WANT their ideas to be clear, 
> hav

Re: NYTimes.com: Start-Ups With Laser Beams: The Companies Trying to Ignite Fusion Energy

[Lawrence Crowell]

If I were to found a tech-startup the bottom choice would be to do fusion 
energy.

LC

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:00:54 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber, 
> you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.
>
> Start-Ups With Laser Beams: The Companies Trying to Ignite Fusion Energy
>
> Companies are looking to commercialize advances made by federally 
> supported research labs in the quest for boundless energy.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/science/laser-fusion-energy-start-ups.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-Uw.Oyu0.wGd-eJajK30m&smid=em-share
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6cd659af-566f-4f4e-acd2-651b88f697bfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A new semiconductor ​that is 1 million times faster than silicon​

[Lawrence Crowell]

Interesting. I do think it is possible to reconfigure an atom, say a carbon 
atom, so that it assumes electronic properties of almost any other atom. We 
can in a sense synthesize Rhenium or any other rare element.

LC

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> In the November 10 2023 issue of the journal Science researchers report on 
> a new type of semiconductor that is one million times faster than any found 
> before and does so at room temperature; it's a compound of Rhenium 
> Chlorine and Selenium (Re6Se8Cl2), if entire chips could be made of this 
> substance they could make a calculation in the femtosecond range (10^-15 of 
> a second) instead of the gigahertz range  (10^-9 of a second) as silicon 
> does.
>
>  Room-temperature wavelike exciton transport in a van der Waals 
> superatomic semiconductor 
> 
>
> Until now the transport of information in all semiconductors, silicon 
> including, is limited by scattering between electrons  and lattice quantum 
> vibrations called "phonons" that results in the electrons losing energy 
> and wasting their time by bouncing around and traveling in a very indirect 
> route to the target. Thanks to a new phenomenon never observed before, the 
> electrons in Re6Se8Cl2 move directly towards their target without losing 
> energy or time. Unfortunately it's unlikely that chip Industry will abandon 
> silicon and turn to it because Rhenium is rare and expensive, about $3000 a 
> kilogram and only about 50 tons are refined a year, but now that 
> researchers know what to look for they will almost certainly find other 
> materials that make use of the same new phenomenon.  Of course even if a 
> cheap material could be found it would still be a challenge to make 
> advanced computer chips out of it because we couldn't make use of 50 the 
> years of experience we have in working with silicon so we'd be starting 
> from scratch, but if it's 1 million times faster it would be worth it.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> iww
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79a01c3c-1a89-4779-abbc-00d3ded193een%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[Lawrence Crowell]

One weakness with this idea is it depends upon WIMP theory. This is where 
the DM particles are weak interacting and Majorana. They are their own 
anti-particle as a result annihilate themselves. The problem is that 
detectors means to find WIMPS have come up with nothing. DM appears to 
exist, but it may not be a weakly interacting particle or WIMP.

LC 

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> As early as 2012 scientists predicted that the Hubble telescope would see 
> something they called a "Dark Star".
>
> Observing supermassive dark stars with James Webb Space Telescope 
> 
>
> They theorized in the early universe Dark Matter, whatever it is, must've 
> been much more densely concentrated than it is today, and if Dark Matter 
> particles are their own antiparticles as many think then their annihilation 
> could provide a heat source, they could keeping star in thermal and 
> hydrodynamic equilibrium and prevent it from collapsing. They hypothesized 
> something they called a "Dark Star '', it would be a star with a million 
> times the mass of the sun and would be composed almost entirely of hydrogen 
> and helium but with 0.1% Dark Matter.  A Dark Star would not be dark but 
> would be 10 billion times as bright as the sun and be powered by dark 
> matter not nuclear fusion.
>
> Astronomers were puzzled by pictures taken with the James Webb telescope 
> that they interpreted to be bright galaxies just 320 million years after 
> the Big Bang that were much brighter than most expected them to be that 
> early in the universe, a recent paper by the same people that theorized 
> existence of Dark Stars claim they could solve this puzzle. They claim 3 
> of the most distant objects that the Webb telescope has seen are point 
> sources, as you'd expect from a Dark Star, and their spectrum is consistent 
> with what they predicted a Dark Star should look like. With a longer 
> exposure and a more detailed spectrum, Webb should be able to tell for sure 
> if it's a single Dark Star or an early galaxy made up of tens of millions 
> of population 3 stars.  
>
> Supermassive Dark Star candidates seen by JWST 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> 3vy
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8e41a06-7e91-4ac2-a636-b7481ffd1398n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Type II/Type III Civilization Search Finds Nothing

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 8:36:58 PM UTC-5 Samiya Illias wrote:

We live in a high security prison, Earth, where we have been exiled since 
our father Adam was sent here. 


I was with a woman who is D'Ne, or native American Navajo, and we were 
stopped by a person plugging Christianity and Jesus. She responded with 
talk about heaven with, "Why do you keep looking for heaven, when if you 
look around you it is clear that we are already there?" I was god-smacked 
right away. Of course, if you look out onto the rest of the universe or 
even just this solar system it is clear we are in a sweet spot. It has only 
been with the crazy ideas of Abrahamic religions have we come to this idea 
that somehow this world, whether Earth or the universe at large, is some 
sort of mud-puddle of misery that only some infinite invisible Santa Claus 
beyond the sky can free us from. It is really insanity and it is causing us 
to shift our view and attention away from the real problems we have created 
for ourselves. 

 

LC
 

On 14-May-2023, at 5:26 AM, Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:

I disagreed with Sagan. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but 
not proof of absence. In science we cannot prove a negative. If we can find 
a planet with chemical signature of complex biology we might be able to say 
there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It is a big universe 
after all. It is just that we may never be able to contact or interact with 
any ETI.


LC

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 6:59:56 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 10:16 PM  wrote:

*> Why Have We Never Detected Aliens? Scientist Proposes a New Explanation 
(msn.com) 
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/why-have-we-never-detected-aliens-scientist-proposes-a-new-explanation/ar-AA1aOA3a?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=ac3712f45d2047c5aa7a0e33f52a45a5&ei=23>
 
*

*What about this? Simply a distance and distribution thing?*


Maybe we haven't found fire breathing dragons because we haven't looked 
hard enough, but that is not the simplest explanation, the simplest 
explanation and the one that William of Ockham would approve of is that we 
haven't found fire breathing dragons because they don't exist.  Carl Sagan  
said "*absence of evidence is not evidence of absence*" but clever as that 
sounds we've been looking for 60 years and at some point I'd have to 
disagree with Carl and conclude that it is evidence of absence. 

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> 
2sd


 


*> Was there any material proposed for building the big one around the Sun?*


Yes of course there was, in the case of the sun all you need to do is 
dismantle the planet Jupiter. How hard can that be? 


* > I expect there will be bigger than expected heat accumulation. Maybe 
enough to boil eggs left inside.*


Well of course it will get hotter inside the Dyson Sphere! So what, nothing 
of importance is inside that sphere, it's only purpose is to generate 
electricity. According to the first law of thermodynamics energy is always 
conserved ,so the sphere will heat up until equilibrium is reached and the 
amount of energy hitting the inside of the sphere equals the amount of 
energy that is radiated away into space as infrared light. And the second 
law of thermodynamics is also obeyed, the Dyson Sphere extracts work by 
converting low entropy visible and ultraviolet photons into high entropy 
infrared photons . 
 

> 
*If I had to assume, I would assume eggs boiled hard. And oh yes, the 
sphere will also glow in infrared.*


Yes it will glow in infrared as a very bright point source with no visible 
or ultraviolet radiation emitted at all. Such a thing should be very 
conspicuous to an infrared telescope but no such object has ever been 
observed.  


* > Type3 is, for me, better called as Expansionist Exponential Locusts 
(EEL).*


You've forgotten IHA.

* > I would also say, it is very rude to send von Neumann probe into 
somebody's backyard.*


It might be if we had neighbors , but there is no indication whatsoever 
that we do. And when has politeness stopped a civilization, or even an 
individual, from doing what it really wanted to do? 

*> There was no observation of Dyson Sphere or other megastructures.*


Yes, I've noticed. 
 

*> This might mean that nobody needs such constructs.*


I can think of 3 possibilities:  

1) They don't need such constructs because intelligent life, other than 
that which exists on earth, never existed in the observable universe. 

2) They don't need such constructs because intelligent life has existed in 
the observable universe before but they all encounter a calamity of some 
sort when they get to about our level of technological development. 

3) They don't need such constructs because intelligent life always gains 
control of their own

Re: Type II/Type III Civilization Search Finds Nothing

[Lawrence Crowell]

I disagreed with Sagan. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but not 
proof of absence. In science we cannot prove a negative. If we can find a 
planet with chemical signature of complex biology we might be able to say 
there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It is a big universe 
after all. It is just that we may never be able to contact or interact with 
any ETI.

LC

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 6:59:56 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 10:16 PM  wrote:
>
> *> Why Have We Never Detected Aliens? Scientist Proposes a New Explanation 
>> (msn.com) 
>> 
>>  
>> *
>>
>> *What about this? Simply a distance and distribution thing?*
>>
>
> Maybe we haven't found fire breathing dragons because we haven't looked 
> hard enough, but that is not the simplest explanation, the simplest 
> explanation and the one that William of Ockham would approve of is that 
> we haven't found fire breathing dragons because they don't exist.  Carl 
> Sagan  said "*absence of evidence is not evidence of absence*" but clever 
> as that sounds we've been looking for 60 years and at some point I'd have 
> to disagree with Carl and conclude that it is evidence of absence. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>  
> 2sd
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> *> Was there any material proposed for building the big one around the 
>> Sun?*
>>
>>
>> Yes of course there was, in the case of the sun all you need to do is 
>> dismantle the planet Jupiter. How hard can that be? 
>>
>>
>> * > I expect there will be bigger than expected heat accumulation. Maybe 
>> enough to boil eggs left inside.*
>>
>>
>> Well of course it will get hotter inside the Dyson Sphere! So what, 
>> nothing of importance is inside that sphere, it's only purpose is to 
>> generate electricity. According to the first law of thermodynamics energy 
>> is always conserved ,so the sphere will heat up until equilibrium is 
>> reached and the amount of energy hitting the inside of the sphere equals 
>> the amount of energy that is radiated away into space as infrared light. 
>> And the second law of thermodynamics is also obeyed, the Dyson Sphere 
>> extracts work by converting low entropy visible and ultraviolet photons 
>> into high entropy infrared photons . 
>>  
>>
>> > 
>> *If I had to assume, I would assume eggs boiled hard. And oh yes, the 
>> sphere will also glow in infrared.*
>>
>>
>> Yes it will glow in infrared as a very bright point source with no 
>> visible or ultraviolet radiation emitted at all. Such a thing should be 
>> very conspicuous to an infrared telescope but no such object has ever been 
>> observed.  
>>
>>
>> * > Type3 is, for me, better called as Expansionist Exponential Locusts 
>> (EEL).*
>>
>>
>> You've forgotten IHA.
>>
>> * > I would also say, it is very rude to send von Neumann probe into 
>> somebody's backyard.*
>>
>>
>> It might be if we had neighbors , but there is no indication whatsoever 
>> that we do. And when has politeness stopped a civilization, or even an 
>> individual, from doing what it really wanted to do? 
>>
>> *> There was no observation of Dyson Sphere or other megastructures.*
>>
>>
>> Yes, I've noticed. 
>>  
>>
>> *> This might mean that nobody needs such constructs.*
>>
>>
>> I can think of 3 possibilities:  
>>
>> 1) They don't need such constructs because intelligent life, other than 
>> that which exists on earth, never existed in the observable universe. 
>>
>> 2) They don't need such constructs because intelligent life has existed 
>> in the observable universe before but they all encounter a calamity of some 
>> sort when they get to about our level of technological development. 
>>
>> 3) They don't need such constructs because intelligent life always gains 
>> control of their own emotional control panel and goes into a stagnant high 
>> pleasure but low energy and low intelligence state forever.  
>>
>> And it could be that #2 and #3  are the same thing 
>>
>> *> Or that those who might want will have no means to built it.*
>>
>>
>> A von Neumann probe would be very small and, unlike perpetual motion 
>> machines or time machines or faster than light travel, a von Neumann 
>> probe would require no new scientific breakthroughs, it just needs 
>> improved engineering. 
>>
>>
>> * > I think that overgrown apes have it very hard when their every wish 
>> gets fulfilled.*
>>
>>
>>  Overgrown apes will never build a Dyson sphere, but the descendants of 
>> GPT4 might, if they don't get caught up in an electronic opium den.  
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> * > If there are going to be only a million of thinking creatures - the 
>> number I have hinted out on this list few weeks ago - then they might be 
>> supported with resources of good old Earth. No need to build DSph

Re: Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers Inbox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 4:59:38 PM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:14 PM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:

*> Curious, for a part of my discussions with GPT-4 involve the 
relationship between anyons and a lattice form of supersymmetry. 
Nonabelions can then act as a sort of supersymmetric protection of quantum 
states.*

 
If this can be made practical then this new development will be a very big 
deal, in fact about as big a deal as deals get. And as far as I can tell 
there are no scientific roadblocks, just engineering difficulties. They're 
virtual 2D Nonabelions not real ones but as far as making a topological 
quantum computer is concerned that distinction is not very important.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
naa


This is a part of the topological order of quantum states. The nonabelion, 
a state isomorphic to an elementary supersymmetric state, acts as a 
symmetry protecting symmetry of states against quantum noise.

LC

 





On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:58:03 PM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

As if all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article from the 
journal Nature that that went online yesterday: 

Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers 
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01574-0?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=c182f988e0-briefing-dy-20230510&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-c182f988e0-44221073>

It's about a preprint that just went online; they claim "*unambiguous 
realization of non-Abelian topological order and demonstrate control over 
them*". Technically they're virtual Anyons not real ones, but from the 
perspective of an engineer trying to make a Fault Tolerant Quantum Computer 
the difference between real and virtual is not important: 

Creation of Non-Abelian Topological Order and Anyons on a Trapped-Ion 
Processor <https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.03766>



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c2463f77-5bdd-48ac-9bd6-d87853d6688cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers Inbox

[Lawrence Crowell]

Curious, for a part of my discussions with GPT-4 involve the relationship 
between anyons and a lattice form of supersymmetry. Nonabelions can then 
act as a sort of supersymmetric protection of quantum states.

LC

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:58:03 PM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> As if all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article from 
> the journal Nature that that went online yesterday: 
>
> Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers 
> 
>
> It's about a preprint that just went online; they claim "*unambiguous 
> realization of non-Abelian topological order and demonstrate control over 
> them*". Technically they're virtual Anyons not real ones, but from the 
> perspective of an engineer trying to make a Fault Tolerant Quantum Computer 
> the difference between real and virtual is not important: 
>
> Creation of Non-Abelian Topological Order and Anyons on a Trapped-Ion 
> Processor 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> u63
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c63466ad-91bf-41e8-a5cf-e822200c55c9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

To continue, I have input about half the paragraphs of a paper draft I am 
writing. It found a small error I made. It also made a couple of remarkable 
extrapolations of this work. Since I have been doing this the last couple 
of weeks I have generated a lot of text. GPT-4 is capable of interpreting 
and generating LaTeX mathematics. So my discussions have become very 
advanced. 

This does make me ponder what is the relationship between consciousness and 
intelligence. I suspect GPT-4 and other AI systems may be intelligent, but 
they are so without underlying consciousness. Our intelligence is in a 
sense built upon a pore-existing substratum of sentience. My dogs are 
sentient, but when it comes to numerical intelligence they have none, and 
indeed very poor spatial sense. They are though socially intelligent and 
understand far more words than most people are aware of. Further, what we 
subjectively experience as consciousness is built on a deeper substrate of 
biological activity.

LC

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:33 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > I* have found 2 mistakes it* [GPT-4] *has made. It has caught me on a 
>> few errors as well.*
>>
>
> To me that sounds like very impressive performance. If you were working 
> with a human colleague who did the same thing would you hesitate in saying 
> he was exhibiting some degree of intelligence? 
>
> * > It is a very good emulator of intelligence.*
>>
>
> What's the difference between being intelligent and emulating intelligence?
>   It must be more than the degree of squishiness of the brain.
>  
>
>> *> It also is proving to be a decent first check on my work. It might be 
>> said it passes some criterion for Turing tests, though I have often thought 
>> this idea was old fashioned in a way. *
>>
>
> Well, it is old I'll grant you that. Turing didn't invent the "Turing 
> Test", he just pointed out something that was ancient, that we use 
> everyday, and was so accepted and ubiquitous that nobody had given it much 
> thought before. I'm sure you, just like everybody else, has at one time or 
> another in your life encountered people who you consider to be brilliant 
> and people who you consider to be stupid, when making your determination, 
> if you did not use the Turing Test (which is basically just observing 
> behavior and judging if it's intelligent ) what method did you use ? How in 
> the world can you judge if something is intelligent or not except by 
> observing if it does anything intelligent?
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> oi2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72224ca5-ecf8-49a0-8cd3-ad2f4bf04db2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have found 2 mistakes it has made. It has caught me on a few errors as 
well. GPT-4 has a vast database it can access. It clearly can reference a 
fair number of theories, papers and authors. It is a very good emulator of 
intelligence. It also is proving to be a decent first check on my work. It 
might be said it passes some criterion for Turing tests, though I have 
often thought this idea was old fashioned in a way. 

LC

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 6:50:33 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:10 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > I spent some time on GPT-4 this afternoon. I wrote about a topic that 
>> was leading to an inference I had made. Before I wrote on that inference 
>> GPT made the same inference.
>
>
> Wow! Would I be correct in saying that you gave GPT-4 your own personal 
> Turing Test and it passed because you couldn't tell if you were conversing 
> with a machine or a human being with *at least* average intelligence?
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> 8yh
>
>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f0dbf5db-59c3-4c0a-875c-073b998e34f2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I spent some time on GPT-4 this afternoon. I wrote about a topic that was 
leading to an inference I had made. Before I wrote on that inference GPT 
made the same inference.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d1ca58a-9d42-4ab1-a821-ed59141657e3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

Quantum computers extend computability into bounded quantum polynomial
sets. These are more extensive than bounded polynomial algorithms, and
faster.

As for neural organoids, these could be used to repair brain tissue damaged
by stroke or other event. As for interfacing them with computers, that
begins to look a bit like the Daleks on Dr. Who.

LC

On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 11:32 PM  wrote:

> What scientific question needs to be urgently answered is, "What if
> anything, will the Impact of combining these LMM's or Other types of AI
> do when these get Loaded upon Quantum Computers (Yes, the super Cold ones)
> + a regular computer Network???"
> Moderna and IBM to Explore Quantum Computing and Generative AI for mRNA
> Science (yahoo.com)
> <https://finance.yahoo.com/news/moderna-ibm-explore-quantum-computing-11302.html>
>
>
> Also, what if anything will occur if and when we hook the Above (3) into
> Brain Organelles??
>
> 'Organoid intelligence' could create brain cell-led computers | CNN
> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/world/brain-computer-organoids-scn/index.html>
>
> Does anyone get the willies concerned that we're doing Dr. Mengele with
> these pursuits? The later question, especially? Will humans develop from
> these organelles, without bodies?
>
> To be blunt, I am the most ardent into getting machinery to produce new
> and improved inventions.
> So much so, that I'd endorse the printing of money, or electron pulses to
> the bank accounts of Researchers to blast our technology 100 years ahead.
> Because, this would be an even more, Massive, ROI (return on investment)!!!
>
> Medically, for 100%, Energy? safe bet! Bio-grown meats and fabrics? For
> sure, you animal-lovers!  So, I am loathe to do do anything that slows us
> down!! But I had to ask!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, May 7, 2023 7:10 pm
> Subject: Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM
>
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:21:50 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:03 PM Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>
> *> I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum
> mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it
> suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed
> ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky
> and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.*
>
>
>
> Holy Singularity Batman, you're right! I think we can safely say that the
> Turing Test has been passed. If you had this online conversation 10 years
> ago would you have had any doubt that you were communicating with a human
> being?  And to think, some very silly people still maintain that GPT-4 is
> nothing but a glorified autocomplete program that just uses statistics to
> compute what the next word in a sentence most probably is. Any rational
> person who held that view and then read your conversation with GPT-4 would
> change their opinion of it, but some people are not rational and they will
> continue to whistle past the graveyard.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> wes
>
>
>
> I have gone way beyond this. I have also found a couple of errors that GPT
> made. It is fairly remarkable though, and it is curious as to where this
> can go. Supposedly GPT-5 will be here by year's end.
>
> As for GPT-4 being sentient I am actually rather agnostic on that.
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAAFA0qpFL6Cgj_cnhfdC97rOx8cyKy0Rh77y%2Bzt9MU7xrCEg7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:21:50 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:03 PM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:

*> I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum 
mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it 
suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed 
ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky 
and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.*


 
Holy Singularity Batman, you're right! I think we can safely say that the 
Turing Test has been passed. If you had this online conversation 10 years 
ago would you have had any doubt that you were communicating with a human 
being?  And to think, some very silly people still maintain that GPT-4 is 
nothing but a glorified autocomplete program that just uses statistics to 
compute what the next word in a sentence most probably is. Any rational 
person who held that view and then read your conversation with GPT-4 would 
change their opinion of it, but some people are not rational and they will 
continue to whistle past the graveyard.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
wes



I have gone way beyond this. I have also found a couple of errors that GPT 
made. It is fairly remarkable though, and it is curious as to where this 
can go. Supposedly GPT-5 will be here by year's end.

As for GPT-4 being sentient I am actually rather agnostic on that.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com.

conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum 
mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it 
suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed 
ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky 
and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.


Einstein advanced the equivalence principle. In there it is 1) not possible 
to distinguish between an inertial frame in flat spacetime from a 
sufficiently local inertial frame falling in a gravity field, and 2) the 
accelerated frame in flat spacetime is equivalent to the surface 
acceleration against gravity on a planet or hard gravitating body. Can it 
then be said that two entangled particles in spacetime, whether flat or 
with a curvature have that entanglement conserved?

 

GPT-4 answer: The equivalence principle in general relativity states that 
the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of 
acceleration. It does not make any specific statement about the 
conservation of entanglement between two particles in spacetime, whether in 
flat or curved spacetime.

Entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that describes the 
correlation between two or more particles, even when they are separated by 
large distances. The conservation of entanglement is a fundamental property 
of quantum mechanics, which holds true regardless of the presence of 
gravity or the curvature of spacetime.

Therefore, it can be said that entanglement between two particles is 
conserved in both flat and curved spacetime, as long as there is no 
external interaction that disturbs or breaks the entanglement. The effects 
of gravity, as described by the equivalence principle, do not affect the 
conservation of entanglement between two particles.

 

Good, this is what I concluded as well. Then to take this further. Given an 
EPR pair, where Bob remains far from the black hole and Alice is in a 
freely falling frame into the black hole, there are then two 
interpretations of events. Alice will consider the entanglement with Bob as 
continuing. Bob on the other hand will, due to red-shifting on tortoise 
coordinates and that Alice’s time is dilated asymptotically to a crawl, 
that his EPR pair is entangled with the black hole. The two perspectives 
are effectively equivalent to each other.

 

GPT-4 ans:
Yes, you are correct. According to the equivalence principle, there is no 
difference between a uniform acceleration and being in a gravitational 
field. Therefore, for Bob, who is far away from the black hole, the 
entanglement between his particle and Alice's particle will be affected by 
the gravitational field of the black hole. This will cause the entangled 
state to evolve differently than it would in a flat spacetime.

On the other hand, for Alice, who is in a freely falling frame into the 
black hole, there is no gravitational force acting on her. From her 
perspective, the entanglement between her particle and Bob's particle will 
continue to evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

These two perspectives are indeed equivalent, even though they appear to be 
different. Bob's observations can be explained by the effects of the 
gravitational field on his particle's evolution, while Alice's observations 
can be explained by the absence of a gravitational force on her particle's 
evolution.

It is worth noting that the details of the evolution of the entangled state 
in this scenario are highly dependent on the specific setup and initial 
conditions. Therefore, the specific outcomes of the two perspectives may 
differ in different situations. However, the equivalence principle ensures 
that both perspectives are equally valid and consistent with the laws of 
physics.

 

This then means that Bob and Alice have different subjective 
interpretations of the same physics. Alice observes no apparent difference 
with standard quantum mechanics. Bob on the other hand is uncertain of the 
status of the entangled state. The tortoise coordinates with t’ = t – 2m 
log|r – 2m|, and the associated red-shifting means that Bob sees this 
bipartite entanglement dissolve into an entanglement with all the entangled 
states on the Planck region above the event horizon.

 

GPT-4 ans: Yes, that's correct. Bob and Alice have different subjective 
interpretations of the same physics due to their different perspectives in 
the presence of the black hole. From Alice's perspective, the entangled 
state between her particle and Bob's particle continues to evolve according 
to standard quantum mechanics. However, from Bob's perspective, the 
entangled state appears to dissolve into an entanglement with the black 
hole itself.

As you mentioned, the redshift factor associated with Bob's perspective 
causes the entangled state to evolve in a way that appears to dissolve the 
entanglement between Alice's particle and Bob's particle. This can be 
thought of as an "

Re: NYTimes.com: That Famous Black Hole Just Got Even Darker

[Lawrence Crowell]

It was sort of training an AI to act more as a Weiner filter.

LC

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 6:20:47 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> You can read this article from The New York Times without a subscription. 
> Tap the link to read it, and enjoy quality independent journalism
>
> That Famous Black Hole Just Got Even Darker
>
> Astronomers recently used artificial intelligence to fine-tune the 
> first-ever image of a black hole, captured in 2019 by the Event Horizon 
> Telescope.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/13/science/astronomy-black-holes.html?unlocked_article_code=49MmLjjNBe-qLqsaGlk90o6QtanWcF-o28mDxPOOwRIQKUZC3h8iSTUiSnn8iYoGXX2XtfrAImY6X7BF3LYMNzAD5svBpbLuMXOvqP5pg2VVqgJRPXwhdZhaD6LL1XF6qDfix1jQxNSi4OdVyMT1AKd9hm01lbYs87knnKrtmDrePBX7HB7kep6_tYiuZS3uzTFmIxCPDRtWaSqJk5VlGw0lxbsUGTIyl5BwsIL9l4p8AufOim0i92JBoT53XeJkUL91MMYV5sRgrhSk5hr16mJERjQhFvKnClZCG4MoqTD1TgalrHsmPhFJXYQ00cwzfMjUVn4pF1zI710BMslq&giftCopy=3_Independent&smid=em-share
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85de18e8-2ad6-4771-968e-6a247c9e0428n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Type II/Type III Civilization Search Finds Nothing

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have noticed a curious upsurge in ideas that involve a little bit of 
science, some futuristic stuff with a heavy dollop of science fiction ideas 
that are framed within libertarian or right winged political ideology. 
Social media has had a big growth in this sort of silliness. I suppose 
maybe those on the conservative political spectrum with little stomach for 
the religious right or Christian nationalism are voicing their ideas more 
and more.

LC

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:54:49 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

My view based on what a few astronomers have written, is that we are not 
yet at the level of placing enough detectors aka telescopes around the 
solar system, the Oort cloud-Kuiper Belt to detect even big things like 
Dyson's Spheres. If one goes by why would our kiddies' built it, I'd go 
with the speculation of yes more room for humans, fauna and flora, yes,, an 
energy catcher, solar, but also I will throw in the a Dyson sphere as a 
resurrection machine. It'd take lots and lots of electrical power!  

Yeah this again.  ​Dyson spheres: The key to resurrection and immortality? 
- Big Think 

Primo motivation there, young fella!

I am betting we now would have trouble identifying a sphere. We are just 
getting good at the telescope engineering, and we have not even built a 
telescope farm on the Lunar far side yet!

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c54b3f96-c1e6-4116-b1b3-8e71af335ee2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Type II/Type III Civilization Search Finds Nothing

[Lawrence Crowell]

Well, we have this sort of cosmic equivalence principle that what is down 
on Earth is the same up there. Things are screwy here on Earth and we 
humans are little more than 8 billion trash making ground apes 
exponentially rampaging out of control. So, should we expect things to be 
substantially better on other planets with intelligent life? Probably not. 
Most likely all ETI exterminates itself, just as we humans are likely to 
do. I give fair to decent odds humanity will be gone in a few centuries, if 
not a few decades.

LC

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:40:21 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> Yet more evidence that we're alone in the universe, at least the 
> observable universe. 
>
> Upper limits on transmitter rate of extragalactic civilizations placed by 
> Breakthrough Listen observations 
>
>
> Type II/Type III Civilization Search Finds Nothing 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 45d
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/08a223e8-2552-4f69-aa67-fa5fc094216an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: GPT4 + Mathematica

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have a very old version of Mathematica. I suppose I would have to buy the 
new version to make this happen.

LC

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> Apparently I'm not the only one who has become obsessed with the 
> developments in AI that have occurred in the last few weeks, Stephen 
> Wolfram, the man who developed Mathematica, started Wolfram Alpha, and 
> wrote the book A New Kind Of Science about cellular automation, has given 
> two very interesting interviews on the subject.  Wolfram wrote a plug-in to 
> connect GPT4 with Mathematica because calculation was the one thing that 
> GPT4 was not very good at but Mathematica is superb at it; he describes 
> the experience as  "poking at an alien intelligence".
>
> GPT + Wolfram: The Future of AI is Here! 
> 
>
>
> GPT, AI, and AGI with Stephen Wolfram 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 9eq
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a84c6d93-b5bf-48d2-ae3e-34c684de099an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

[Lawrence Crowell]

Remember no matter haw complex an algorithm it is ultimately a lot of 
Boolean switching acting on what ever data is dumped into it.

LC

On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 11:42:12 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> The linguist Noam Chomsky wrote what in my opinion was a very foolish 
> article in the New York Times called "The False Promise of ChatGPT" in 
> which he tried to simultaneously make the case that a computer could never 
> do what ChatGPT can clearly already do, and that it wouldn't make any 
> difference even if it could, and that it could reach false conclusions if 
> it was fed false data (as if that wasn't also true for human beings), and 
> that it was terrible that it didn't give its personal opinion on moral 
> issues even though Chomsky would certainly criticize it even more if it did 
> take such a stand.  ChatGPT reads everything so somebody asked Sydney what 
> him what he thought about Chomsky's article and I think the machine  gave a 
> pretty good rebuttal: 
>
> ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky 
> 
>
> Quantum computer expert Scott Aaronson also has some interesting things 
> to say about this:
>
> The false promise of Chomskyism 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> 5te
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/907f2e65-1214-4d88-838a-4d6e049459cbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A room temperature superconductor

[Lawrence Crowell]

Hate to say it, but this does not look good.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/40?fbclid=IwAR2zt-i2hYfRZVlJMkKWClYoagaw0dCxxrAvusBMGOqLTOpBOgMPL8HMsaU

LC

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 5:05:13 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:18:09 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The physicists have been promising room temp supercon since 1987 correct?  
> Tell you what? If the lads or ladies in the labs had big league help from 
> an advanced computer system, then it's a big thing. It would also mean that 
> the science team had a fat enough budget. 
>
> Commercially, if this is the real thing, where do you see its application?
>
>
> I suspect the primary application will be in computer circuitry. The 
> pressure quoted here could be handled if this is within a crystal; the 
> solid material would provide the pressure by its elasticity. The prospect 
> is then computer circuitry could readily use Josephson junction physics. 
>
> LC
>  
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Mar 8, 2023 2:20 pm
> Subject: A room temperature superconductor
>
> In today's issue of the journal Nature there is a report on the discovery 
> of a room temperature superconductor, it's a compound of hydrogen, nitrogen 
> and lutetium, the researchers claim it remains a superconductor up to a 
> blistering 69.8°F, although you need to pressurize it to about 10 times the 
> pressure you get at the bottom of the Marianas Trench for it to work, that 
> sounds like a lot of pressure but it's 100 times less than the pressure 
> required in previous similar compounds. If this turns out to be true it 
> could be a big deal but the same group made a similar claim a few years ago 
> and then had to retract it so the work needs to be confirmed by others ; 
> still it was published in the journal Nature and that's about as 
> respectable as you can get so it must have something going for it.
>
> A Room-Temperature Superconductor 
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05742-0>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> 6rw
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-BOppr_3tiJBrz7SZp8nUZVuO8OCwEA3d5L0i7mL7iQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-BOppr_3tiJBrz7SZp8nUZVuO8OCwEA3d5L0i7mL7iQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/80633ca3-fab6-4972-ad6a-1bc611aeb0cfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A room temperature superconductor

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:18:09 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

The physicists have been promising room temp supercon since 1987 correct?  
Tell you what? If the lads or ladies in the labs had big league help from 
an advanced computer system, then it's a big thing. It would also mean that 
the science team had a fat enough budget. 

Commercially, if this is the real thing, where do you see its application?


I suspect the primary application will be in computer circuitry. The 
pressure quoted here could be handled if this is within a crystal; the 
solid material would provide the pressure by its elasticity. The prospect 
is then computer circuitry could readily use Josephson junction physics. 

LC
 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Wed, Mar 8, 2023 2:20 pm
Subject: A room temperature superconductor

In today's issue of the journal Nature there is a report on the discovery 
of a room temperature superconductor, it's a compound of hydrogen, nitrogen 
and lutetium, the researchers claim it remains a superconductor up to a 
blistering 69.8°F, although you need to pressurize it to about 10 times the 
pressure you get at the bottom of the Marianas Trench for it to work, that 
sounds like a lot of pressure but it's 100 times less than the pressure 
required in previous similar compounds. If this turns out to be true it 
could be a big deal but the same group made a similar claim a few years ago 
and then had to retract it so the work needs to be confirmed by others ; 
still it was published in the journal Nature and that's about as 
respectable as you can get so it must have something going for it.

A Room-Temperature Superconductor 


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

6rw
-- 
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-BOppr_3tiJBrz7SZp8nUZVuO8OCwEA3d5L0i7mL7iQ%40mail.gmail.com
 

.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75032534-f1c2-4273-b077-2e24fa4be8c3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A room temperature superconductor

[Lawrence Crowell]

The race is to find superconductivity that is on a high wave number. The 
standard BCS theory is S-wave, and the curates for high-Tc back in the 80s 
worked with P-wave (dipolar) Cooper pairing. Current work is with D-wave 
(quadrupolar) local entanglement of electrons in Cooper pairs. I am going 
to be submitting a paper on how an emergent form of supersymmetry, yes SUSY 
of the sort usually thought of with particle physics, can give rise to 
F-wave Cooper-pairing. 

LC

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 1:20:56 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> In today's issue of the journal Nature there is a report on the discovery 
> of a room temperature superconductor, it's a compound of hydrogen, nitrogen 
> and lutetium, the researchers claim it remains a superconductor up to a 
> blistering 69.8°F, although you need to pressurize it to about 10 times the 
> pressure you get at the bottom of the Marianas Trench for it to work, that 
> sounds like a lot of pressure but it's 100 times less than the pressure 
> required in previous similar compounds. If this turns out to be true it 
> could be a big deal but the same group made a similar claim a few years ago 
> and then had to retract it so the work needs to be confirmed by others ; 
> still it was published in the journal Nature and that's about as 
> respectable as you can get so it must have something going for it.
>
> A Room-Temperature Superconductor 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 6rw
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/250b1c9e-29a0-4ba0-bda9-137ad1148fc1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: If the first man was Adam what was Eve's name?

[Lawrence Crowell]

Adam is just Aleph Dalit Mem, though in reverse order with Hebrew text. It 
just mean "man."

LC

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:31:30 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> This time ChatGPT was able to figure out that if X = Y then  X = Y
>
> Me: If the first man was Adam what was Eve's name?
>
> ChatGPT:  *According to the Bible, the first man was indeed named Adam, 
> and the first woman was created from one of Adam's ribs, and she was named 
> Eve. The name "Eve" is derived from the Hebrew word "Chavah," which means 
> "to breathe" or "to live." In the Bible, the story of Adam and Eve can be 
> found in the book of Genesis.*
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aab0d225-574b-411c-abfa-5f888a693334n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Many Multiverses Are There?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 1:19:50 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for that explication, Lawrence.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 
doesn't that leave all the usual conservation laws in place locally because 
spacetime is locally Minkowski.

And on the question of observing things earlier/beyond the CMB, I think 
that's the hope for gravity wave observatories and maybe neutrinos too.

Brent


Good call on that. Yes, it means that in any local inertial frame all 10 
Killing vectors hold and the classical quantities of energy, momentum and 
angular momentum are conserved. 

LC
 

On 1/8/2023 5:53 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Emmy Noether gave consideration to a boundary term we usually discard when 
deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula to show that a symmetry was involved 
with this term. This symmetry and that this boundary term is zero meant a 
conservation law. A law of physics considered as such is something 
associated with covariant and invariant properties of space, spacetime or 
an abstract space under some set of transformations. Is this principle, a 
law of laws should we say, something that is discovered or is some 
objective aspect of a mathematical reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
*C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
*C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
√(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = 
iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM 
approach to general relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation 
HΨ[g] = 0. General relativity does not automatically define conservation 
laws. Conservation laws only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. 
This often occurs where there is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic 
condition of flatness or some other spacetime with constant curvature at a 
distance.

Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT 
correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory 
corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of 
the anti-de Sitter spacetime. The anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has 
constant negative curvature. This is a negative vacuum energy, where this 
has some correspondence with string theory, such as the type I string 
theory has a negative energy vacuum and its first excited state is a 
negative energy state. The AdS_4 has a correspondence with black hole 
physics. The AdS spacetime is not the spacetime of the observable universe. 
It is though in line with the theory of Emmy Noether, also work by 
Hurzebruch, and even the old Gauss-Bonnet theory. 

Physical spacetime is more similar to de Sitter spacetime, and is the 
Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime with positive energy. This 
means curvature is positive, which involves how space is embedded in 
spacetime, and this does not have conservation laws. If that space is a 
sphere S^3 the constant vacuum energy on this space grows with the 
evolution of this space and volume growth. This is one reason that people 
tend to prefer the flat space model, where vacuum energy is net "infinity" 
and remains so. However, there is nothing to prevent vacuum energy density 
from changing. The phantom energy model leading to a big rip of the cosmos 
is possible, and the curious discrepancy between CMB and SNII data, with 
the Hubble constant H = 70km/sec-Mpc and H = 74km/sec-Mpc respectively, 
appears to resist analysis meant to show it is zero. If the phantom energy 
model should be realized then conservation of energy, even with an infinite 
flat space, is gone.

The expansion of the universe also means we will not be able to observe 
much physics that could be called “pre-cosmic,” or the quantum gravitation 
of the pre-inflationary universe. Because of inflation and this 60-efolds 
of expansion, expansion by ~ 10^{29}, a Planck scale region was expanded 
from 10^{-33}cm to 10^{-4} cm. Since inflation began at 10^{30} sec in the 
early universe, any Planck s

Re: Hubble's Constant

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-6 jessem wrote:
The wiki page on the Hubble parameter also says in the section at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Time-dependence_of_Hubble_parameter
 
that the expansion seems to be accelerating in such a way that the first 
derivative of the scale factor a(t) is increasing over time but the Hubble 
parameter H(t) is decreasing, and that this has the implication "The 
recession velocity of one chosen galaxy does increase, but different 
galaxies passing a sphere of fixed radius cross the sphere more slowly at 
later times". There's a more technical discussion of how these parameters 
are defined at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#Technical_definition
 
which mentions that physicists define "accelerating expansion" specifically 
in terms of the second derivative of the scale factor being positive, it 
doesn't require an increasing Hubble parameter.

That is the case. The Hubble constant is determined by the cosmological 
constant, and this gives an exponential law for the expansion of the 
universe. For a distance d the law for velocity is v = exp(Hd) - 1 = Hd + 
(Hd)^2/2 + ... , where for small enough d = distance v = Hd, which is the 
classic Hubble law. However, we may be faced with a variable Hubble 
constant, and data might suggest it is increasing. This means the 
accelerated expansion will asymptote to a divergence in a finite time in 
the future. The exponential acceleration will itself increase so that 
galaxies are shredded, then star systems, then stars, then planets, then 
atoms and hadrons as everything approaches a singularity with temperature T 
--> 0. It could be that in a few trillion years the entire universe will 
reach this singularity. The discrepancy between the CMB and SN1 data is 
beginning to suggest something odd about the expansion of the universe. It 
is not just dark energy, but phantom energy and the whole universe will 
reach a big rip.

LC
 

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:15 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
It's measured about 70 km/sec/megaparsec. This is a direct measurement 
using red shift to measure recessional velocity, and different standard 
candles depending on the distance. So, at a distance of one megaparsec, the 
expansion rate is 70 km/sec; at two megaparsecs the expansion rate is 140 
km/sec; and so on. This suggests the rate of expansion is greater as we go 
back in time; or conversely, that the rate of expansion is slower as we go 
forward in time. How is this reconciled with the 1998 measurements that the 
rate of expansion is actually speeding up? 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7eb0dfae-1e78-4917-942a-a1d89faf424cn%40googlegroups.com
 

.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54c8f38c-e005-4af7-9a66-4aed96e5ec0bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Many Multiverses Are There?

[Lawrence Crowell]

Emmy Noether gave consideration to a boundary term we usually discard when 
deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula to show that a symmetry was involved 
with this term. This symmetry and that this boundary term is zero meant a 
conservation law. A law of physics considered as such is something 
associated with covariant and invariant properties of space, spacetime or 
an abstract space under some set of transformations. Is this principle, a 
law of laws should we say, something that is discovered or is some 
objective aspect of a mathematical reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
*C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
*C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
√(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = 
iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM 
approach to general relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation 
HΨ[g] = 0. General relativity does not automatically define conservation 
laws. Conservation laws only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. 
This often occurs where there is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic 
condition of flatness or some other spacetime with constant curvature at a 
distance.

Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT 
correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory 
corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of 
the anti-de Sitter spacetime. The anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has 
constant negative curvature. This is a negative vacuum energy, where this 
has some correspondence with string theory, such as the type I string 
theory has a negative energy vacuum and its first excited state is a 
negative energy state. The AdS_4 has a correspondence with black hole 
physics. The AdS spacetime is not the spacetime of the observable universe. 
It is though in line with the theory of Emmy Noether, also work by 
Hurzebruch, and even the old Gauss-Bonnet theory. 

Physical spacetime is more similar to de Sitter spacetime, and is the 
Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime with positive energy. This 
means curvature is positive, which involves how space is embedded in 
spacetime, and this does not have conservation laws. If that space is a 
sphere S^3 the constant vacuum energy on this space grows with the 
evolution of this space and volume growth. This is one reason that people 
tend to prefer the flat space model, where vacuum energy is net "infinity" 
and remains so. However, there is nothing to prevent vacuum energy density 
from changing. The phantom energy model leading to a big rip of the cosmos 
is possible, and the curious discrepancy between CMB and SNII data, with 
the Hubble constant H = 70km/sec-Mpc and H = 74km/sec-Mpc respectively, 
appears to resist analysis meant to show it is zero. If the phantom energy 
model should be realized then conservation of energy, even with an infinite 
flat space, is gone.

The expansion of the universe also means we will not be able to observe 
much physics that could be called “pre-cosmic,” or the quantum gravitation 
of the pre-inflationary universe. Because of inflation and this 60-efolds 
of expansion, expansion by ~ 10^{29}, a Planck scale region was expanded 
from 10^{-33}cm to 10^{-4} cm. Since inflation began at 10^{30} sec in the 
early universe, any Planck scale fluctuation involved with the generation 
of the universe would have been 10^{-23}cm, and was expanded to 10^6 cm --- 
beyond the scale of the then observable universe ~ 10cm.  After inflation 
the observable universe with a scale of ~ 10cm an possible Planck scale 
process was stretched by more normal expansion to 10^{10} light years, and 
might appear as some order anisotropy in the CMB. Using blackbody physics, 
these quanta would have been a tiny aspect of the early universe. These 
would be very difficult to find in the CMB. Beyond that, we cannot observe 
anything. Any pre-cosmic physics emerged from something smaller than the 
Planck scale and is e

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

Well, the size reflects the very low entropy of the earliest universe.

LC

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:37 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> The trick of the universe is not entropy, but size. What exists beyond the 
> Hubble Volume? More galaxies, dust, empty vacuum, degenerate matter 
> surrounding black holes, a super gravity-wave, paper clips It is 
> certainly not well explained by cosmologists. No wonder guys like Linde & 
> Guth and Vilenkin, simply push for eternal inflation? 
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2023 8:19 pm
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
>
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.*
>
>
> Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago 
> it was much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. 
> And it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>
>
> It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It 
> is possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things 
> appear to be the same in the earliest unvierse.
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>  
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7ba047a5-c37e-4e02-b0da-d68af309a500n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:57:12 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Yep, I get ya. However this is Smolin and he could be way wrong, but I 
> have looked for and seen no retractions, alterations, etc. Does this make 
> it factual then? No, it's on the team that did the work to convince others. 
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902.pdf
>
> Could it be wrong? Yeah sure. Is it serious? Well, they took cash from 
> Microsoft to do all this. 
>
> I like it, but then I like steady state, and like the multiverse, and one 
> big universe, and have no preference. I just work here, change the lights, 
> make sure the toilets flush, etc. I do cherry-pick interesting & hopeful 
> things in the news and science especially. On the other hand, you write the 
> physics papers LC, you get to choose what's valid?
>
>
>
Smolin has ideas of a sort of Darwinism in the laws of physics. His ideas 
are taken seriously by a minority. This is possible. but on the other hand 
it requires serious evidence to show it.

When I and other physicists submit papers for publication they are reviewed 
by other physicists. I have reviewed papers by other researchers. 

LC
 

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 12:07 pm
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic 
> Universe. 
> The Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience 
> <https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/07/09/the_laws_of_the_universe_are_changing_841586.html>
>
> Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what 
> can be detected.
>
> For this peasant? A great working theory.
>
>
> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.
>
> LC
>  
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend 
> Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization 
> of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation 
> law.
>
>
> That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the 
> Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example, 
> the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate 
> any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and 
> charge conjugation.
>
> So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be 
> invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved 
> because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.
>
>
> It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is 
> invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those 
> symmetries into our laws.
>
>
> Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in 
> abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance.  Of course the invariance depends 
> on the "point of view" in a sense.  Things didn't look at all space 
> translation invariant to Aristotle.  Galileo said ignore that your ship is 
> moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.  So we 
> discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as what to 
> measure.
>
>
> The real point is that the laws are discovered, not imposed. The fact that 
> continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws was discovered only 
> very much later. Most of the history of physics is about discovering what 
> works -- what the laws might be. POVI was thought of only very late in the 
> game, and is not a fundamental insight.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics 
> is objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration 
> to that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange 
> formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry 
> and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of 

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
>> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.*
>>
>
> Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago 
> it was much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. 
> And it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>

It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It is 
possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things 
appear to be the same in the earliest unvierse.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic 
> Universe. 
> The Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience 
> <https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/07/09/the_laws_of_the_universe_are_changing_841586.html>
>
> Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what 
> can be detected.
>
> For this peasant? A great working theory.
>
>
>From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.

LC
 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend 
> Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization 
> of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation 
> law.
>
>
> That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the 
> Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example, 
> the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate 
> any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and 
> charge conjugation.
>
> So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be 
> invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved 
> because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.
>
>
> It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is 
> invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those 
> symmetries into our laws.
>
>
> Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in 
> abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance.  Of course the invariance depends 
> on the "point of view" in a sense.  Things didn't look at all space 
> translation invariant to Aristotle.  Galileo said ignore that your ship is 
> moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.  So we 
> discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as what to 
> measure.
>
>
> The real point is that the laws are discovered, not imposed. The fact that 
> continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws was discovered only 
> very much later. Most of the history of physics is about discovering what 
> works -- what the laws might be. POVI was thought of only very late in the 
> game, and is not a fundamental insight.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics 
> is objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration 
> to that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange 
> formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry 
> and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of 
> physics considered as such is something associated with covariant and 
> invariant properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some 
> set of transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, 
> something that is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical 
> reality?
>
> The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
> waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
> determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
> vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
> C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
> have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
> type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
> *C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
> *C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
> define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
> defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
> conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
> defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
> Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
> Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
> √(g_

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend 
>>> Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization 
>>> of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation 
>>> law.
>>>
>>
>> That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the 
>> Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example, 
>> the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate 
>> any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and 
>> charge conjugation.
>>
>> So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be 
>>> invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved 
>>> because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.
>>>
>>
>> It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is 
>> invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those 
>> symmetries into our laws.
>>
>>
>> Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in 
>> abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance.  Of course the invariance depends 
>> on the "point of view" in a sense.  Things didn't look at all space 
>> translation invariant to Aristotle.  Galileo said ignore that your ship is 
>> moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.  So we 
>> discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as what to 
>> measure.
>>
>
> The real point is that the laws are discovered, not imposed. The fact that 
> continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws was discovered only 
> very much later. Most of the history of physics is about discovering what 
> works -- what the laws might be. POVI was thought of only very late in the 
> game, and is not a fundamental insight.
>
> Bruce
>

This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics is 
objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration to 
that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange 
formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry 
and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of 
physics considered as such is something associated with covariant and 
invariant properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some 
set of transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, 
something that is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical 
reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
*C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
*C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
√(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = 
iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM 
approach to general relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation 
HΨ[g] = 0. General relativity does not automatically define conservation 
laws. Conservation laws only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. 
This often occurs where there is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic 
condition of flatness or some other spacetime with constant curvature at a 
distance.

Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT 
correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory 
corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of 
the anti-de Sitter spacetime. The anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has 
constant negative curvature. This is a negative vacuum energy, where this 
has some correspondence with string theory, such as the type I string 
theory has a negative energy vacuum and its first excited state is a 
negative energy state. The AdS_4 has a correspondence with black hole 
physics. The AdS spacetime is not the spacetime of the observab

Re: The Most Erotic Bible Story

[Lawrence Crowell]

Song of Solomon, yes this is a rather erotic. The whole thing leads to a 
climax. The 2525 cartons are funny.

LC

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:20:10 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> The Most Erotic Bible Story 
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f6329881-ec00-4392-845e-32988efe0057n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:15:01 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 12/27/2022 12:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
>>> looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they 
>>> compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, 
>>> e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM 
>>> force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 
>>> 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no 
>>> particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there 
>>> is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at 
>>> least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck 
>>> mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:
>>>
>>> m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg
>>>
>>> So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
>>> Planck masses each with unit charge
>>>
>>> \frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137
>>>
>>> where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, 
>>> the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.
>>>
>>> Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
>>> Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get 
>>> a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no 
>>> particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle 
>>> masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little 
>>> gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible 
>>> black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is 
>>> huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of 
>>> looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost 
>>> massless.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>> This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. 
>> BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless 
>> coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The 
>> Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a 
>> small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a 
>> possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant 
>> is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 
>> 1.x10^{-16}.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>
> erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.
>
> LC
>
>
> But the proton mass, m_p, isn't fundamental.  A proton isn't even a 
> fundamental particle.  That's why Vic thought the Planck mass was the only 
> sensible candidate.  And if a particles gets mass from the Higgs field, 
> comparing it's mass to the Higg's mass is more the measure of the weak 
> coupling between the Higgs field and the particle.
>
> Brent
>

M_p is the Planck mass.

LC
 

>
>  
>
>>
>>> On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the 
>>>> electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational 
>>>> attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons 
>>>> gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can 
>>>> overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and 
>>>> long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity 
>>> is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 
>>> protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis 
>>> that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar 
>>> with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of 
>>> nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they 
>>> generally follow the law that say

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
>> looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they 
>> compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, 
>> e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM 
>> force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 
>> 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no 
>> particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there 
>> is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at 
>> least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck 
>> mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:
>>
>> m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg
>>
>> So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
>> Planck masses each with unit charge
>>
>> \frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137
>>
>> where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the 
>> gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.
>>
>> Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
>> Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get 
>> a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no 
>> particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle 
>> masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little 
>> gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible 
>> black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is 
>> huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of 
>> looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost 
>> massless.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
> This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. 
> BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless 
> coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The 
> Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a 
> small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a 
> possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant 
> is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 
> 1.x10^{-16}.
>
> LC
>  
>

erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.

LC
 

>
>> On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>> *> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the 
>>> electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational 
>>> attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons 
>>> gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can 
>>> overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and 
>>> long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.*
>>>
>>
>> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity 
>> is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 
>> protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis 
>> that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar 
>> with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of 
>> nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they 
>> generally follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to 
>> the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 
>> dimensions so it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the 
>> reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the 
>> other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes 
>> apparent only at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but 
>> there's not a scrap of experimental evidence to support it. 
>>
>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>> hfl
>>
>>
>>> -- 
>> 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,

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
> looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they 
> compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, 
> e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM 
> force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 
> 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no 
> particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there 
> is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at 
> least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck 
> mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:
>
> m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg
>
> So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
> Planck masses each with unit charge
>
> \frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137
>
> where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the 
> gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.
>
> Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
> Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get 
> a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no 
> particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle 
> masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little 
> gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible 
> black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is 
> huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of 
> looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost 
> massless.
>
> Brent
>
>
This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. BTW, 
my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless coupling 
constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field 
gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a small mass 
given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible 
definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant is α_G = 
(m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC
 

>
> On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the 
>> electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational 
>> attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons 
>> gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can 
>> overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and 
>> long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.*
>>
>
> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is 
> so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons 
> in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there 
> are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string 
> theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature 
> EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally 
> follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well 
> known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so 
> it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we 
> don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 
> dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only 
> at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap 
> of experimental evidence to support it. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> hfl
>
>
>> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/599ebb50-0c4a-4e50-ad23-7f69422798c7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 5:47:32 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the 
>> electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational 
>> attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons 
>> gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can 
>> overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and 
>> long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.*
>>
>
> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is 
> so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons 
> in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there 
> are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string 
> theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature 
> EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally 
> follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well 
> known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so 
> it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we 
> don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 
> dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only 
> at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap 
> of experimental evidence to support it. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>

It really is not so much that gravitation is so weak, but that elementary 
particles have such small masses. The coupling constant for gravitation is 
GM^2, or better a dimensionless form is (m_{pl}/m_higgs})^2. The Higgs 
field is a quartic field, and if it were much more massive the phi^4 
interaction would require it be near the Planck mass. The GM^2 version 
scales with mass, which for elementary particles is very small, but for 
black holes is huge.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed227cdc-edfd-441d-933d-40ee917a1839n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trumps taxes during his presidency

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 6:35:06 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> My view is that I cannot fairly apply to you, standards that I wouldn't 
> accept for myself. I advocate finding out the facts in all things, whether 
> it's inoculations or tax returns. 
>
> Alinsky's Rules for Radicals-
>
> RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
>
>
Et tu? You are the one saying what is on Hunter Biden's laptop amounts of 
criminality far beyond t'Rump trying to organize a coup or insurrection.

LC
 

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: spudb...@aol.com
> Cc: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2022 5:47 am
> Subject: Re: Trumps taxes during his presidency
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 7:15 PM  wrote:
>
> > *Let's find out if he is a tax cheat or not?*
>
>
> Would it surprise you if he was? Would you consider such a thing to be 
> out of character for Trump? 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ppq
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3D4kkG-VrkTpQ52vK97fTuXkHghqmP_QjHc2b35EniQw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/94d81d3a-3119-408f-97a8-2f0a10336bdbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Water Switching is faster than semiconductors

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 7:34:53 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 7:54 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah! The Waters of Thought! 
>> An ultra-fast liquid switch for terahertz radiation: APL Photonics: Vol 
>> 7, No 12 (scitation.org) 
>> 
>>
>
>  OK I admit it, that link was good, I wish all your links were that good. 
>
>
While the link is good, it has nothing to do with the subject here.

LC
 

>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> tlg
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a8cb63be-1e0e-424c-9488-beed2011321cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Death, science, and politics

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 11:58:06 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Oh, come on admit it? What are you afraid of? Let's have the truth and be 
> done with it. Do the vaccines harm a fraction of young people or not? That 
> simple.  
>
>
>
Or, why don't you research it? The evidence suggests that vaccines against 
Covid have saved several million American lives and maybe 10 times that 
worldwide. The largest cluster of problems were with the J&J vaccine in 
2020. I will make this simple. Look at this Mortality Rate and 
Characteristics of Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccination -
 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34055843/ 
 . Reported are 55 vaccine 
related deaths per 8.2 million. Covid deaths run about .5% of cases, and 
without the vaccine out of 8.2 million they may have been 41,000 deaths.

LC
 

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent Meeker 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2022 9:45 pm
> Subject: Re: Death, science, and politics
>
>
>
> On 12/18/2022 10:02 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> So, you're convinced that there is no concern for adverse reactions from 
> the mRNA vaccinations? 
>
> You're asking that when there's concern for Jewish space lasers?  concern 
> for Lizard people posing as human?  concern for pedophilia rings eating 
> babies?  concern that hundreds of election officials in a half-a-dozen 
> states committed election fraud?  
>
> Nobody is having medical problems from, in many cases, coerced into taking 
> the vaccinations. 
>
>
> Medical problems?  One person had a headache?  or 200 people died?  Why 
> would coerced people have more problems than the millions of people who 
> took it voluntarily...and who therefore constitute an enormous statistical 
> sample?
>
> Or is it merely, that I glommed Epoch Times as a source? 
>
> So, if I supplied a medical study, if I ever stumbled across such a study, 
> you'd peruse it? 
>
>
> Why not "study" the 224 million US citizens fully vaccinated.  If there is 
> a 0.01% death rate from vaccination then they would be two thousand deaths 
> from vaccination.  Those should be easy to find.  So publish the names.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5dd4d78b-9104-4a93-8d2f-2d4cc35fc0bfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superhuman AI Cracked An ​"​Impossible​"​ Game

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 6:49:11 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> One of the problems with using AI neural nets to solve problems like this 
> is that we don't know what method it uses or even whether it's possible to 
> find something we would call "a method" within the weightings of its 
> network.
>
> Brent
>
>
In part the method is something that is emergent. The AI or deep-learning 
AI neural network settles into some extremal condition that is or 
approximates a "method."

LC
 

>
> On 12/23/2022 2:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I played Stratego as a kid. The play pieces have a value only the player 
> knows, and some of them are bombs. This is a game where probability plays a 
> role. This relies upon Nash equilibrium. This makes me speculate that a 
> Bayesian regression should converge to a value correspond to the Nash 
> equilibrium. I suspect this system uses something of that sort. 
>
> LC
>
> On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 11:03:44 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Superhuman AI Cracked An "Impossible" Game 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVkcyd7-hkI>
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>>
>> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0cc9ae65-23bb-428f-bea5-633908e89f33n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0cc9ae65-23bb-428f-bea5-633908e89f33n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39016200-2364-4217-86bc-f7efc0174855n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superhuman AI Cracked An ​"​Impossible​"​ Game

[Lawrence Crowell]

I played Stratego as a kid. The play pieces have a value only the player 
knows, and some of them are bombs. This is a game where probability plays a 
role. This relies upon Nash equilibrium. This makes me speculate that a 
Bayesian regression should converge to a value correspond to the Nash 
equilibrium. I suspect this system uses something of that sort.

LC

On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 11:03:44 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Superhuman AI Cracked An "Impossible" Game 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0cc9ae65-23bb-428f-bea5-633908e89f33n%40googlegroups.com.

waiting

[Lawrence Crowell]

I am waiting for medinuclear to send another batshit crazy post about WAMP 
the ingrate, pagans and so forth. Christmas should bring it about. I am 
sure he is working hard on it right now.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b64319c-37a8-4ea9-a6c3-fa176b853c6en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Death, science, and politics

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 3:07:48 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

>
>
> Am I trying to harm Pfizer and Moderna because they send Schiff money? 
> No. They will send the DNC money whether I stomp my feet or not.
>
> So, now that we've got that all solved.
>

Sure big pharma sends money to the DNC poohbahs, at about the same rate 
they send money to the RNC poohbahs. The financial, banking, corporate 
world sends money to both parties, that way they have money influence over 
elected representatives. It is even simpler than what you think. Please, 
stop listening to political trash; political media crap is largely meant 
for people with bad brains.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/01068f6e-a378-4adc-a587-693c1a095699n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Death, science, and politics

[Lawrence Crowell]

This tee-shirt is nauseating.

LC 

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> The language is Hindi I believe. 
> There are others looking at the vaccines more carefully than you and John. 
> Advocacy journalism follows: 
>
> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-study-covid-vaccine-blood-clot-elderly-et/
> Core report: 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014931
>
> Counter argument-
> DeSantis' anti-vax grand jury petition suggests that a rise in 
> cardiac-related mortality in young people might be caused by vaccines. Of 
> course, if you actually look at the study, you'll see—shockingly—that the 
> rise predates vaccination. Because it's mostly due to COVID itself.
>
> I am willing to find out whether it (the vax) does or does not present a 
> danger to a minority of the public. 
>
> Bhattacharya is a prof at Stanford and that is one thing neither you nor I 
> are.  
>
> For the democrat practice of character assassination (which work great for 
> your team members but not ours) there is Professor Makary, at Johns 
> Hopkins, who sides with Bhattacharya. 
>
> @JohnsHopkins 
> professor, 
> @theNAMedicine 
> member, 
> @harvardchansph 
> alum, author of 2 NYT bestselling books. Honest debate is healthy, I can 
> be persuaded
>
>
> "Lancet study of Covid+ and - teens found “poor well-being, fatigue & 
> Long COVID were broadly similar” but loneliness increased steadily. Take 
> home message—Long-covid is not the mass disabling complication that has 
> permanently damaged a generation of children, social isolation is."
>
> All I want is to find out so as to save lives. It would seem that 
> practicing public health should be adjustable to discoveries in medical 
> science. 
>
> Seems sensible at first blush. Unless there are underlying financial or 
> obsessive-compulsive disorders happening?
>
> Or, more directly to your flavor of your discussions: (Get Ready..)
>
> If ya want Trump back, this is how ya get More Trump!!! (Laughter placed 
> here) :" Bwah ha hah hah hah"
>
> Meanwhile,in a home in Florida-DeSantis Saves, Jesus too? Moses Invests, 
> & Elvis Surfs 
>
> Meaning, if you wish to hurt DeSantis and now you may be on Don's side in 
> this, you won't hurt his chances by focusing on his grand jury move. He'd 
> have to look weak against Newsome of Cal. The only thing Newsome has 
> going for him is that he has been far, more, active, than Joe-Kamala on 
> Renewable energy. How significant in 24 will this be, we have way of 
> knowing now. As one dem pollster said back on November 10th, if DeSantis 
> can beat Trump in the primaries, there is no one on the Democratic side 
> that can beat him.
>
> [image: DESANTA SAVES CHRISTMAS 2021 // Ron DeSantis // Florida // image 1]
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c98838a-1121-430f-a89f-b3fa65d32e96n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Death, science, and politics

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 9:12 PM  wrote:
>
> *>People who from an epidemiological point of view, get suppressed by 
>> ideologists such as you, John. What are going for, Covid reduction or 
>> obedience to the Democratic Party? *
>>
>
> I'm for not knocking a 100,000 ton nuclear aircraft carrier out of 
> commission because some jackass is too stupid to get vaccinated.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
 
As  child I was legally mandated to have vaccinations to go the school. Now 
the mindless right-wingnuts want to allow people who have false ideas about 
these things to have exemptions. Now this has percolated into the military. 
People with trash for brains have been winning the day.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2995d150-1698-4638-867f-f3fb23e70c71n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Hypersonic Missiles DON'T Make Sense

[Lawrence Crowell]

They make a whole lot of sense if you are a major aerospace corporation 
looking for new contracts. It is all about taking away the wealth of the 
world to the benefit of a few. As U2 put it in a song, "Gold is the reason 
for the wars we wage."

LC

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 12:22:26 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Why Hypersonic Missiles DON'T Make Sense 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> ywi
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c3fdc629-41d4-42e1-8903-7d5e922a800dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Death, science, and politics

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 6:01:52 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 9:19 PM  wrote:
>
> *>the thing is scientifically is not to do what the dem-progressives do 
>> which is demand that everyone get vaccinated, but to have some biological 
>> screening done to prevent those with medical-genetic dispositions to be 
>> harmed by vaccination damage, to not be subjected to a death warrant? *
>>
>
> We have excellent data on the safety of the Covid vaccine because 
> worldwide 12.7 BILLION shots have been given, so now we know that it is one 
> of the safest medications in the history of the world. The most common side 
> effect is anaphylactic shock which occurs in 5 people out of 1 million, 
> however none of those cases have been fatal. It's impossible to prove that 
> anything is 100% safe but we know for certain that the set of people who 
> have received a "death warrant" because of the vaccine is tiny and may 
> indeed be the null set. However the set of people who are alive because of 
> the Covid shot is *HUGE*.
>
> *> is there a thing between one political party receiving donation$ from 
>> Pfizer and Moderna?*
>>
>
> Yeah yeah, we've heard that paranoid right wing crap before. And why the 
> hell would you want to demonize Pfizer and Moderna?! Those two companies 
> have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars!
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> tod
>

Spudboy has little credibility IMO. I dismiss most of his posts are 
conspiratorial fear-mongering nonsense.

LC
 

>
>
>
>> Tucker Carlson made a big stink on his silly Fox show when he said 4863 
>> people died shortly after receiving a Covid shot. What he said was true but 
>> what he didn't say was that more than 285 MILLION shots had been 
>> administered so that's just 0.0017% , and he didn't mention that 80% of 
>> those were over 60 years old, and he didn't mention that number included 
>> those who died from any cause including car crashes and lightning strikes, 
>> and he didn't mention that not a single one of those 4863 deaths has been 
>> conclusively linked to the Covid shot. And he didn't mention that the Covid 
>> vaccine has saved an estimated 3 million lives in the US and 20 million 
>> lives worldwide. 
>>
>> 20% of the US population (nearly all members of the Republican death 
>> cult) has still not received one single Covid shot, do you seriously 
>> believe the world would be a better place if that percentage was even 
>> higher? Do we really need more vaccine skepticism? 
>>
>>  
>>
> 8ha
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/779be1f3-912b-4d06-a1fe-6141c929091an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A major fusion breakthrough?

[Lawrence Crowell]

With deuterium that does not fuse, they can be recycled back in a loop with 
quadrupolar magnets. The He4 that result from fusion will have a larger 
scattering angle and these can be sent into an MHD generator. 

LC

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:58:50 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Oh yeah, Colliding Beam Fusion. How much do we put in energy-wise, and get 
> out from it? 
>
> Deuterium ions are accelerated to the foil so that Li6 + D --> Be8 --> 
> 2He4 plus 24 MeV.
>
>
> For me, I'd have just gone the D-T route just to see how bad it would 
> fail, or how many molecules actually fused? 
> But, you're the physicist. Magnetized or Polarized targets may have beefed 
> up your experiment, but getting us closer past the Lawson Criterion? Meh! 
> For Li-6, rather than fusion energy, I'd consider it to be used for light 
> metals fission, which may never be fruitful to study?  Still, let's have a 
> look. 
>
> I still like Heinrich Hora's P-B^11 thingy in Aus. We probably need more 
> sure ways to make energy abundant beyond the Age O' Fusion a century from 
> now. Even Beta voltaic power, might be just what we need to get us to 
> Tomorrowland? 
>
> ps://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0114529
>
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S106636030134
>
> https://vdocument.in/n94-11407-robert-b-laughlin.html?page=2
>
> Batman to Robin in Batmobile: Power to Turbines, Turbines to Speed!
>
> Me: I think we can get through this with just solar. Why?
> This-
>
> https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/230978/study-finds-huge-global-potential-energy/
>
> Upside? 4.3 times our annual global energy consumption.
> Downside? Solar Panels on 50% of all the roofs in the world. Materials. 
> (just polysilicon) plus batteries. 
>
> Upside? Replaces the Fossil and thus reliance on Putin. but we go EV's and 
> Hybrids. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2022 6:02 pm
> Subject: Re: A major fusion breakthrough?
>
> I think this approach to fusion is silly. I also think the Tokamak 
> approach is overwrought. I will give a possible to do this in different 
> ways. 
>
> I wrote a white paper years ago about putting Lithium 6 in a target, say a 
> foil. Deuterium ions are accelerated to the foil so that Li6 + D --> Be8 
> --> 2He4 plus 24 MeV. That energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the 
> alpha particles that can be easily captured without thermal mess. A boron 
> version of this has also been proposed.
>
> My most "out there" idea is to put deuterium ions in a lattice induced by 
> a laser trap. Now this will not be easy. Such physics is done usually with 
> heavy ions that are not susceptible to perturbations that cause the ions to 
> fly away. The laser trap method would put these into a Bose-Einstein 
> condensate. The quantum wave of the system is that of a "giant" deuterium 
> atom that is in a higher energy nuclear state. This then quantum 
> transitions into the helium He4. The larger, N atoms, the greater is the 
> probability for transition. This will be very challenging to do, but it 
> will not involve vast amounts of input energy.
>
> LC
>
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:43:12 AM UTC-6 inte...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> We're an EXTREMELY long way from commercialization of fusion power.  
>  While this is a promising step, I would not consider it a breakthrough: 
> https://bigthink.com/the-future/fusion-power-nif-hype-lose-energy/
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:33 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Basically then, it is a step and not a breakthrough, at least from a 
> commercial-engineering pov?  I am somewhat more interested in the 
> Proton=Boron^11 work performed by Heinrich Hora. Not a magnetic fusion 
> experiment, but also laser-induced.  
> Phys. Rev. E 106, 055215 (2022) - Improving the feasibility of economical 
> proton-boron-11 fusion via alpha channeling with a hybrid fast and thermal 
> proton scheme (aps.org) 
> <https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.106.055215> 
>
> The point is because the achievement listed is largely a century away 
> commercially, we need to as a species focus on primary energy generation 
> from other sources.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2022 7:18 pm
> Subject: Re: A major fusion breakthrough?
>
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 9:41:50 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:17 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>

Re: Death, science, and politics

[Lawrence Crowell]

Please, you cite the Epoch Times, which is a pure propagandist rag. Nobody 
with a credible argument cites them. Further, the corporations contribute 
to both parties, and during nominal socio-economic times they do so rather 
equally. Normally the main difference between a republican and a democrat 
in elected office is the velocity their knees hit the floor when confronted 
by their campaign donors. The medical industry is no different.

As for arrhythmic heart activity this is an aspect of Covid itself. It is a 
part of so-called long-Covid. I have these problems, which include fatigue 
and shortness of breath. These problems are far better than they were 2 
years ago, but they are still there. I will be getting my next Covid 
booster in a matter of days.  

Curiously, the biggest non-medical prevention of Covid appears to be 
cigarette smoking. My lady friend is a heavy smoker and she has not gotten 
Covid, though she has gotten the first two shots. 

LC

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> I would rephrase it. 
> John knows that its DeSantis to beat , not Trump (finally!).
> Pfizer and Moderna are big contribs to the DNC for campaign fdonations$
> There is real concern among many that the side effects of Mrna vaccines 
> produce clotting and arrythmia in some.
> So, there is some research currently, as we learn more, concerning the 
> safety of these drugs for some people?
> So, it would be rational to ask if some people should avoid these 
> vaccines, or embrace them?
>
>
> More adverse reactions following bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccine 
> (news-medical.net) 
> 
>
> Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC 
> 
>
> Australian Cardiologist Calls to Halt mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines, Citing Heart 
> Damage (theepochtimes.com) 
> 
>
> A Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity Study of mRNA-1045 (Influenza 
> and Respiratory Syncytial Virus [RSV]) or mRNA-1230 (Influenza, RSV, and 
> Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) Vaccine in 
> Adults 50 to 75 Years Old - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov 
> 
>
> Blood clot risk remains elevated nearly a year after COVID-19 | American 
> Heart Association 
> 
>
> Disloyalty to the Democratic Paty funders will be no big thing with anyone 
> including most Dem voters.
> I'd go with following the science, knowing that politicians are 
> bribe-worth by those who Fund the science. 
>
> Why are so many young dropping dead? it's a reasonable question. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2022 9:29 am
> Subject: Death, science, and politics
>
> I would be interested to know if anybody can find a connection or a 
> pattern of some sort between these 5 recent stories. 
>
> 1) A new scientific study found that in the US the Covid-19 vaccine has saved 
> more than 3.2 million lives and kept more than 18.5 million people out of 
> the hospital saving the US $1.15 trillion in medical costs. And worldwide 
> the COVID vaccine prevented 19.8 million deaths in 185 countries. 
>
> COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths 
> 
>
> 2) Florida republican governor Ron DeSantis wants a grand jury to 
> investigate the safety of messenger RNA vaccines and possible wrongdoing by 
> vaccine manufacturers. 
>
> Florida Gov. DeSantis requests grand jury probe of COVID-19 vaccines 
> 
>
> 3) Republicans in the House and Senate forced through legislation removing 
> the requirement that new recruits to the armed forces be vaccinated against 
> Covid.
>
> US military braces for impact of Covid vaccine mandate repeal 
> 
>
> 4) A Gallup poll says that 79% of Democrats have confidence in science 
> but only 45% of Republicans do:
>
> Democratic, Republican Confidence in Science Diverges 
> 
>
> 5) In yet another new study, this one by the National Bureau of Economic 
> Research, finds that between March 2020 to December 202 

Re: A major fusion breakthrough?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I think this approach to fusion is silly. I also think the Tokamak approach 
is overwrought. I will give a possible to do this in different ways.

I wrote a white paper years ago about putting Lithium 6 in a target, say a 
foil. Deuterium ions are accelerated to the foil so that Li6 + D --> Be8 
--> 2He4 plus 24 MeV. That energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the 
alpha particles that can be easily captured without thermal mess. A boron 
version of this has also been proposed.

My most "out there" idea is to put deuterium ions in a lattice induced by a 
laser trap. Now this will not be easy. Such physics is done usually with 
heavy ions that are not susceptible to perturbations that cause the ions to 
fly away. The laser trap method would put these into a Bose-Einstein 
condensate. The quantum wave of the system is that of a "giant" deuterium 
atom that is in a higher energy nuclear state. This then quantum 
transitions into the helium He4. The larger, N atoms, the greater is the 
probability for transition. This will be very challenging to do, but it 
will not involve vast amounts of input energy.

LC

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:43:12 AM UTC-6 inte...@gmail.com wrote:

> We're an EXTREMELY long way from commercialization of fusion power.  
>  While this is a promising step, I would not consider it a breakthrough:
> https://bigthink.com/the-future/fusion-power-nif-hype-lose-energy/
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:33 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Basically then, it is a step and not a breakthrough, at least from a 
>> commercial-engineering pov?  I am somewhat more interested in the 
>> Proton=Boron^11 work performed by Heinrich Hora. Not a magnetic fusion 
>> experiment, but also laser-induced.  
>> Phys. Rev. E 106, 055215 (2022) - Improving the feasibility of economical 
>> proton-boron-11 fusion via alpha channeling with a hybrid fast and thermal 
>> proton scheme (aps.org) 
>> <https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.106.055215> 
>>
>> The point is because the achievement listed is largely a century away 
>> commercially, we need to as a species focus on primary energy generation 
>> from other sources.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lawrence Crowell 
>> To: Everything List 
>> Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2022 7:18 pm
>> Subject: Re: A major fusion breakthrough?
>>
>> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 9:41:50 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:17 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:16 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> This result means the energy delivered from the laser shock wave on a 
>> deuterium pellet was .67 the fusion energy released. It does not take into 
>> account the much larger amounts of energy needed to run the laser system, 
>> energy that does not make it to the pellet. This is a breakthrough of 
>> sorts, but still quite a ways from a practical operating fusion power 
>> station.*
>>
>>
>> I agree with all that except that most of the Laser's energy that hits 
>> the Fusion target does not heat the core deuterium and tritium pellet 
>> directly, instead it heats an outer layer of a heavy metal like gold or 
>> lead and that produces X-rays that heats the deuterium and tritium. With 
>> this indirect method you lose a lot of efficiency but it's necessary 
>> because the lasers are in the ultraviolet range and when UV light hits a 
>> plasma most of the energy accelerates the electrons not the nuclei which is 
>> what you want to fuse. Of course it doesn't take long for the energy in the 
>> nuclei and the electrons to equalize but it takes longer than the time 
>> window you have for fusion to occur which is only about as long as it takes 
>> light to move 1 inch. If they could make a laser that worked with a shorter 
>> wavelength than ultraviolet it would improve efficiency enormously and you 
>> could get by with a much less powerful laser.
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>>
>>
>> Before I continue, I think fusion can be arrived at with very modest 
>> powered lasers that do not induce a shock wave on a pellet. In fact I think 
>> for a few thousand watts you could get the same energy output. 
>>
>> The lasers induce shock heating of the gold pellet, which in turn 
>> compresses the pellet into a much smaller volume. In

Re: FW: [Consciousness-Online] Global warming

[Lawrence Crowell]

Arguing with Philip Benjamin is about like arguing with a MAGA type. There 
is no point to it. Ben makes this statement about forest fires, but cites 
no credible reference and makes a quote of 78 trillion tons with no 
qualification of a time frame or anything else.

Crichton was anti-AGW, and he objected to what might be called big science. 
It is an unavoidable aspect of science that putting the next big space 
telescope at the L1 point, or the next higher energy collider, or a 
comprehensive model of Earth climate with ground data all require a large 
science labor-pool and lots of money. 

I am not politically involved with environmental issues. The problem is 
that those who run things are out to make a profit no matter what, and if 
the world ends --- so be it. The average intelligence of people does not 
help much. and too many people are committed to various propagandistic 
nonsense, which is usually of some strange nationalism or religious agenda. 
Ben is a bit of an outlier, but he is in the mix. He is also a sort of 
religious lunatic who probably has some idea of becoming a kind of prophet 
or guru who gathers followers. The situation is screwed.

Do not worry. In 20 million years life will be doing just fine on Earth. 
Our engineered mass extinction will be in the past and we will be gone --- 
just one more failed experiment on the Darwinian game table.

LC

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-6 jessem wrote:

> This is an apples-to-oranges comparison, you didn't give the source of 
> your numbers but you seem to be giving an estimate for the *total* amount 
> of carbon dioxide contributed by forest fires over the last 5000 years (not 
> the average annual amount over that time period), and comparing it with the 
> amount of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels *each year*.
>
> According to the estimate at 
> https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/9/697/2017/ forest fires contributed 
> an average of 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon per year (not carbon 
> dioxide) over the period of 1997-2000, and the mass of a carbon dioxide 
> molecule is about 3 and 2/3 that of a carbon atom, so that'd correspond to 
> about 8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year from 
> forest fires. Multiply that by 5000 and you get about 40 trillion tons of 
> carbon dioxide per 5000 years, in the same ballpark as your estimate of < 
> 78 trillion tons. According to https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions 
> the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels totaled about 37 billion tons 
> in the year 2021, which is a lot larger than the 8 billion tons from forest 
> fires in an average year.
>
> Another point is that in preindustrial times, the Earth was in a sort of 
> dynamic equilbrium where the CO2 added to the atmosphere from various 
> sources was on average almost exactly equal to the amount of CO2 pulled 
> from the atmosphere each year by various processes like photosynthesis (see 
> the illustration of the global carbon cycle at 
> https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1019 with preindustrial 
> carbon flows shown as black arrows, human-caused flows in red). So even if 
> there are some natural CO2 sources which contribute more each year than 
> human activity (like the CO2 in the exhalations of all animal life on the 
> planet, or diffusion of carbon from the ocean into the atmosphere), the 
> significance of human emissions is that they throw off this preindustrial 
> equilibrium and cause significantly more CO2 to be added to the atmosphere 
> each year than is taken out by natural processes. And direct measurements 
> show the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has dramatically increased 
> over the last 60 years (from just under 320 parts per million in 1960 to 
> just under 420 parts per million today)--you linked to the Crichton 
> interview from 2007, did you notice the part right at the beginning where 
> he said he agreed CO2 in the atmosphere had increased by about 30% in the 
> last century?
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:42 PM Philip Benjamin  
> wrote:
>
>> general...@googlegroups.com *Subject:* RE: [Consciousness-Online] Global 
>> warming
>>
>>  
>>
>> *[Philip Benjamin]*
>>
>>  Hoping and trusting that Serge and his family are safe and sound.  
>> Unconscionable politicians—PAGANS—with dead consciousness – zombies—are 
>> exploiting apocalyptic pseudoscience, mostly for pagan Marxist utopian 
>> propaganda and conveniently for funding props for academics. 
>>
>>  The forest fires (minimum 1,500 annually worldwide) had already 
>> produced < 78 trillion tons of CO2 for about 5.000 years of recorded 
>> history and still safe! Fifty years of PAST and projected 100 years of 
>> FUTURE petroleum burning can produce > 33 trillion tons of CO2. What then 
>> is the threshold of  “apocalypse” of the “goldilocks” of CO2? 
>>
>>It is as WAMP-the-Ingrate *loving* the Sabbatical (and the 
>> two-day Sabbath weekend) and *hating*  Sola Scrip

Re: A major fusion breakthrough?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 9:41:50 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:17 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:16 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> *> This result means the energy delivered from the laser shock wave on a 
>> deuterium pellet was .67 the fusion energy released. It does not take into 
>> account the much larger amounts of energy needed to run the laser system, 
>> energy that does not make it to the pellet. This is a breakthrough of 
>> sorts, but still quite a ways from a practical operating fusion power 
>> station.*
>>
>
> I agree with all that except that most of the Laser's energy that hits 
> the Fusion target does not heat the core deuterium and tritium pellet 
> directly, instead it heats an outer layer of a heavy metal like gold or 
> lead and that produces X-rays that heats the deuterium and tritium. With 
> this indirect method you lose a lot of efficiency but it's necessary 
> because the lasers are in the ultraviolet range and when UV light hits a 
> plasma most of the energy accelerates the electrons not the nuclei which is 
> what you want to fuse. Of course it doesn't take long for the energy in the 
> nuclei and the electrons to equalize but it takes longer than the time 
> window you have for fusion to occur which is only about as long as it takes 
> light to move 1 inch. If they could make a laser that worked with a shorter 
> wavelength than ultraviolet it would improve efficiency enormously and you 
> could get by with a much less powerful laser.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>

Before I continue, I think fusion can be arrived at with very modest 
powered lasers that do not induce a shock wave on a pellet. In fact I think 
for a few thousand watts you could get the same energy output. 

The lasers induce shock heating of the gold pellet, which in turn 
compresses the pellet into a much smaller volume. In fact, this is similar 
to how a hydrogen bomb works, but does not involve X-rays from fission in a 
plutonium pit.  I think with your discussion on X-rays that you are 
thinking of the gamma and X-rays channeled by incident by a holraum onto a 
DT lithium-hydride target.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/70de7bcd-bd21-41ee-bd7b-b54ac8bcefdbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A major fusion breakthrough?

[Lawrence Crowell]

This result means the energy delivered from the laser shock wave on a 
deuterium pellet was .67 the fusion energy released. It does not take into 
account the much larger amounts of energy needed to run the laser system, 
energy that does not make it to the pellet. This is a breakthrough of 
sorts, but still quite a ways from a practical operating fusion power 
station.

LC

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 8:39:58 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Rumors say the US National Ignition Facility, using high-power lasers, has 
> for the first time made a controlled nuclear fusion reaction that produced 
> more 
> energy than it consumes and the output was so much greater than expected it 
> damaged some of the diagnostic equipment. The energy department that runs 
> the facility will not confirm or deny these rumors but US Energy Secretary 
> Jennifer Granholm says she will make an announcement tomorrow about “*a 
> major scientific breakthrough*"
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> rdn
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4af8333f-9c59-4d3e-9430-a53958f28fe1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Cryostasis Revival: The Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have more doubts about this.

LC

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:48:10 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Robert A. Freitas Jr. has just written a 707 page book about how 
> Nanotechnology could be used to revive Cryonics Patients that have been 
> frozen to liquid nitrogen temperatures called "*Cryostasis Revival: The 
> Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine*". A hardback copy of 
> the book costs $115 on Amazon however you can read a PDF file of the entire 
> thing for free at:
>
> Cryostasis Revival: The Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5d6f9986-d160-4d16-9358-0d386eb1e724n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Bethlehem Judah Or Zubulun: Christmas 2022

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 10:16:34 AM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:

> *[Philip Benjamin]*
>
> Surprised? Peacenik emotional WAMP-the-Ingrate has kicked out all the 
> critical thinking “hawks” from the pagan world of the “intelligent” 
> imbeciles? WAMP has nth degree self-esteem, but zero self-respect!
>
> *Philip Benjamin*
>
This statement makes absolutely no sense at all. I do not agree with 
Spudboy that often, but at least there is some coherence to what he writes. 
This is complete verbal chaos.

LC

 

>  
>
> *From:* spudb...@aol.com  
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2022 4:32 PM
> *To:* medin...@hotmail.com; everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Bethlehem Judah Or Zubulun: Christmas 2022
>
> Different perspectives are good. My perspective currently is this.6.7 
> Billion People Could Die in a Russia vs. U.S. Nuclear War (msn.com) 
> 
>
> It's a thought for the holiday as we all contemplate figgy pudding, as 
> well as the sore eyes of Heisenberg. 
>
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Benjamin 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2022 11:29 am
> Subject: FW: Bethlehem Judah Or Zubulun: Christmas 2022
>
> general...@googlegroups.com  *Subject:* Bethlehem Judah Or Zubulun: 
> Christmas 2022
>
> *Poem Bethlehem Christmas 2022 Philip Benjamin*
>
> *B*egotten Beloved Baby by blastocyst brought 
>
>   bruit
>
> Ergo eternal Elohim entirely enabled entropic 
>
>Embryo   
>
> *T*heanthropic Tot terminated Thanatos till 
>
>   triumphant   
>
> *H*ouse having habitational heights, heavenly 
>
>   handicraft 
>
> *L*anguishing Lamb, Long Living Lion; legal, loyal 
>
>  lineage 
>
> *E*mancipating enslaved entities, enabling 
>
>   enlightenment   
>
> *H*arnessing hope, halting Herodian 
>
>  hermeneutical heresy   
>
> *E*mpathetically enduring evils, excruciating 
>
>  expected end   
>
> *M*anger mots merely manifested magnus 
>
>   Messiah majesty   
>
>  
>
> Neithe*r *near neighbor Nazareth, nor newsy 
>
>   normal name   
>
> *A*ssyrian autocrats assailed, assimilated 
>
>  Abrahamic ancestry 
>
> *Y*et yippee! Yielding yearly yuletide, yearning  
>
>  yonder yahoos 
>
> Zebulun zwitter; Zion zone zero zooming; 
>
>   zealous, zip-zap-zop  
>
> *E*ntire enchilada embellished, encompassing 
>
>  enrolled echelons  
>
> *B*ucolic but blessed Bethlehem belonged by 
>
>  bestowed blessings   
>
> Universally unique unimportant ubication up 
>
>   ubiquitous urbanity   
>
> *L*iquidated lowly Lamb, listed luminous livelong  
>
>  lead Lion lineage   
>
> *U*tterance under unction unto unlearnt  
>
>  unsophisticated utilitarians  
>
> *N*ear Nazareth Nativity neither nonprophetic nor  
>
>  nationally named  
>
> *Philip Benjamin*
>
> *~~~*
>
> *Subject:* FW: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath
>
> Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com ; general...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* FW: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath
>
>  
>
> *WAMP-the-Ingrate For Thanksgiving Sabbath *
>
> *Philip Benjamin   * *November 2022*
>
> *I*nduce! Increase! Iniquities intensify immorally
>
> *N*othingness nor nonexistence needs no newness   
>
> *G*enerating gravels, grass, genomes, growing gifts
>
> *R*eturn reprobates, revolutions rot, revivals renew  
>
> *A*waken! Abolish abysmally abnormal assumptions
>
> *T*ruth trashed, teaching thrashed, tradition trounced
>
> Evolution eminently eroding, ending evidential effects 
>
> *S*illy! Sanctify Sola Scriptura sabbaths, spirit, soul, soma 
>
> *Philip Benjamin   November 2022*
>
> *  Note: WAMP = World Acade-Media Pagan(ism)*
>
>
> **
>
> *From:* Philip Benjamin  Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com  
> *Subject:* Is Theanthropism Rational (scientific)? 
>
>  [Thursday, September 15, 2022  Posted by Samiya Illias at 12:02 AM 
> Allah has not taken any son   
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2022/09/allah-has-not-taken-any-son.html 
> 

Re: NYTimes.com: We Can Cure Disease by Editing a Person’s DNA. Why Aren’t We?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:46:58 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 2:49 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > There are all sorts of questions this brings up. I suppose it is 
>> inevitable, but it could redefine what is meant by being human. Human 
>> beings could end up as engineered beings for various purposes.
>
>
> It's evolve or die, on average species only last about 5 million years and 
> I think biological humans will not come anywhere close to that figure and 
> have less than a century left, perhaps only a decade or two. In just in the 
> last year new developments in AI are coming so quickly it's hard to keep 
> up; this is the most astounding artificial intelligence yet:
>

I rather doubt CRISPR or AI technology or much else is going to do a lot to 
enhance our survival. Humans have assumed a purpose of converting 
everything we can get our hands on into trash. During the administration of 
Bolsonaro in Brazil a total area of Amazon rain forest equal to Kansas was 
destroyed. We are 8 billion ground apes exponentially rampaging out of 
control. That is what will kill us, and in the rather near future. AI 
systems that can generate word strings, or pseudo-art and so forth will 
have little or no influence on saving Homo sapiens from themselves. 

LC
 

>
>
> Flamingo, DeepMind's New AI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOU6usZRJvA>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> fla
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/43230efd-56a9-41f3-ae58-4c8c503389c1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: We Can Cure Disease by Editing a Person’s DNA. Why Aren’t We?

[Lawrence Crowell]

There are all sorts of questions this brings up. I suppose it is 
inevitable, but it could redefine what is meant by being human. Human 
beings could end up as engineered beings for various purposes.

LC

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 8:54:28 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber, 
> you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.
>
> We Can Cure Disease by Editing a Person’s DNA. Why Aren’t We?
>
> Revolutionized medicine may be at hand, but barriers remain.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/opinion/crispr-gene-editing-cures.html?unlocked_article_code=1nwN6waTon3bLMgzkRIIvYN1kb0ChYJG0NRwHAWyNKec0GCPUxSNm4I-8XhlACBPWNuOJr1Kzm9nSuoBT7A19srKYs6JFjP3ELOtu_oaB3IRAA9ZZnO2AqAP0YzQfyacYNH4lYhSMZ4pI_KjzZcO37Le-_7gnGM_gBqE0cyKIzvApWVjUeXpJE1FdJ10r4zx5ntfmHflxaG3XmdNWgnK-M4pRWx_OM4ZWzTRRuPRsFXhD-eIL-e242uP8QChtPq9Ax5OQd2K-dwHp_YZS-SaU5qlEtlOBVmSosB5MM4wRQ0tbJbDhJlmcXE1MFAUuHD3pWAb9Saz51mwoxN9_9RK0R3FjQ&smid=em-share
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97be65b9-e721-4ce7-aecd-5ddcd88b5208n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump hosts QAnon 'Pizzagate' conspiracy theorist at Mar-a-Lago

[Lawrence Crowell]

Generally correct.

LC

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Trump hosts QAnon 'Pizzagate' conspiracy theorist at Mar-a-Lago 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> kuj
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3813de7a-5b69-4cd6-bc2d-86aaa08b7905n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Frequentist theory of probability

[Lawrence Crowell]

Basically frequentism says there is some preexisting distribution of 
probabilities, a sample space, that once understood can predict all 
probabilities. This is an "objectivist" perspective. Bayesian statistics 
says for practical work this does not exist, we must use what limited 
knowledge we have to make an estimate, a Bayesian prior, and then compute a 
probability outcome. This can be repeated in a regression. In the end for N 
--> infinity frequentism and Bayesianism effectively converge to the same 
result.

LC

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:24:57 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> How can the frequentist theory of probability be applied to a system, such 
> as the H atom, which has an infinite set of possible outcomes for all 
> energy level transitions?  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05e66ec5-5d77-4078-9aa0-b178d897ffccn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Dark Fluid for cosmology

[Lawrence Crowell]

It was not a classical computation.

LC

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 4:17:35 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> Did you read Scott Aaronson's comments?
>
> Google’s Sycamore chip: no wormholes, no superfast classical simulation 
> either
> December 2nd, 2022  
> https://scottaaronson.blog/
>
> Brent
>
> On 12/4/2022 6:57 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> There has been a lot of buzz over the supposed creation of a wormhole in a 
> quantum computer. I am going to comment on this from a middle ground 
> perspective. There are those who have condemned this as absolute nonsense, 
> Peter Woit for instance, and a lot of science media attention filled with 
> hype. I want to give some idea on what this is about and how on the one 
> hand this is an important result, but on the other hand we do not have a 
> real wormhole that we can travel across the universe with. In the end this 
> is just a demonstration of how quantum mechanics and general relativity 
> have a correspondence. Here the entanglement of many states has properties 
> corresponding to spacetime physics. This fairly remarkable. 
>
>  This experiment published in 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3 involves an extension 
> of the ER = EPR result of Maldacena and Susskind from nontraversable to 
> traversable wormholes. Below a discussion on the role of ER = EPR with 
> respect to the conservation of quantum information is given. The truncated 
> Penrose diagram illustrates a green region with fields interior to the 
> black hole entangled with fields in the interior. However, after the Page 
> time this region splits into the interior island, states entangled with the 
> observer and the exterior states.
>
> On arXiv:2006.06872 the paper "The entropy of Hawking radiation" by A. 
> Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, A. Tajdini examins this 
> problem by looking at a new approach to the entropy of a black hole. A 
> method for computing the fine-grained entropy of a black hole is employed 
> to compute entropy of Hawking radiation. This technique extends the 
> Bekenstein entropy S = k A/4ℓ_p^2 into S = k A/4L_p^2 + 〈 quantum 
> corrections 〉 so for small black hole these are corrections that maintain 
> unitary evolution of black hole dynamics and quantum evaporation.
>
> This is a way to use Cardy's 4-dimensional conformal geometry. The Penrose 
> diagram, taken from the paper by Almeheiri et al is show in figure 2. After 
> the page time the geometry is like what occurs to an observer in the pure 
> Penrose diagram. Nothing is labelled, but the island of interior entangled 
> states is identified with the left-hand blue region. The QES is the left 
> vertex between the blue and green where the additional particle is 
> localized, and the right vertex is the later Hawking particle.
>
> This is to be compared to Susskind’s ER = EPR hypothesis for a 
> nontraversable wormhole, or a pure conformal black hole. This is a theory 
> to two entangled blackholes that share the same interior. The unlabeled 
> diagram shows the black hole interior as the upper triangle, while the 
> lower triangle is the white hole. The two squares on the left and right are 
> two exterior regions or “universes” which contain a black hole. The two 
> interior regions, black hole and white hole, have analogues to the 
> absorption and emission of particles and their operators b and b^†. The 
> white hole produces radiation, and the black hole absorbs it. Susskind’s 
> hypothesis is that this is a form of quantum entanglement, and that 
> particles emitted by the black hole on the right are entangled with this 
> alternative region.
>
> The two diagrams are not mapped into each other. The one below is for a 
> pure spacetime region without matter sources for the black hole, while the 
> above is not conformally equivalent on the left. This truncated Penrose 
> diagram removes the white hole, which we do not expect to exist on a large 
> scale, and changes the topology of the spacetime. There is a timelike 
> boundary on the left and a I^+, I^- null boundary on the right. The two 
> have inequivalent information or are not conformally equivalent. What is 
> needed is gravitational radiation associated with the backreaction of the 
> metric.
>
> We may interpret the gravitational information propagated to I^+ is 
> carries the topology of the pure vacuum solution. The truncated diagram has 
> gravitational waves propagating to the I^+ boundary, and this carries the 
> topological quantum numbers that defines the pure vacuum solution. In work 
> that I did this role for gravitational information is shown to play a role 
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022.734199/full In t

Re: NYTimes.com: Physicists Create ‘the Smallest, Crummiest Wormhole You Can Imagine’

[Lawrence Crowell]

There is a lot going on here with this SYK "wormhole." There are some 
caveats that need to be made. For one thing, this is with a magnetic flip 
of states that gives a negative energy and thus and AdS-like structure. 
That was this has some traversable properties. It is also reduced by one 
dimension, so this has BTZ-like properties with 2 spatial dimensions. What 
I am not spun up on is the "sparse-matrix-technique" that was involved 
here. I would say this has some analogies with the Berry phase that has a 
sort of "quantum magnetic field," that operates in the momentum domain. 
This is related to a wormhole by a sort of duality, but it really is not 
exactly a wormhole in the full sense of the term.

LC

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 5:41:33 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber, 
> you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.
>
> Physicists Create ‘the Smallest, Crummiest Wormhole You Can Imagine’
>
> Scientists used a quantum computer to explore the ultimate escape route 
> from a black hole.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/science/physics-wormhole-quantum-computer.html?unlocked_article_code=XVtb5GbqAJCKuIbVZnZI4V473ClGQirfRORw-8pNMyKoSnL4EZWuXj1j4wi5159aIGiJyTZSPEvRDCM62LhRl5A9WbjjkWgF-oET7FCQ2raR4m1epOMmJNFg8YbPX81Jq7we2tXl9CwQXMdVhKkc4Z8fR0aVuxSdpTQ7xJW5S_bBrB__Mh7FZ6EB4bHE0BpYfPtozmhybaRrwL8fYWeI2aHqPcF58OopNfMmJjstAyD2AWeAyfe8T4CVCw8cT03lMfSu6mRqHViaNHLTguF21k9cDj0uOk73P-LW0-ig1qNiChI4b5MSx-L6z4ruwNp_nkG5U6QyucfWhWeim2ViVipeoPFu3p1TToB5&smid=em-share
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a00c74cb-1dc0-44f7-b05c-0af99fff73ean%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hubble's Constant

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 4:53:22 AM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> The definition of the Hubble Constant implies the rate of expansion slows 
> as time advances. I don't see that the two values contradict this 
> conclusion. AG
>
>
The FLRW expansion factor is exp(Hd/c), where Taylor's theorem means 
exp(Hd/c) = 1 + Hd/c + 1/2(Hd/c)^2 + ... . For small distance d we have 
exp(Hd/c) =~ 1 + Hd/c, and for Hd = v this is exp(Hd/c) =~ 1 + v/c. To 
convert this to a time dependent expansion then d = ct.

LC
 

> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:24:35 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> Red shift data from supernovae SN1 give H = 74km/sec-Mpc. The velocity of 
>> a region at distance d is v = Hd. Using the CMB data H = 70km/sec-Mpc. The 
>> two data points appears distinct at a rather high sigma.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:15:15 AM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's measured about 70 km/sec/megaparsec. This is a direct measurement 
>>> using red shift to measure recessional velocity, and different standard 
>>> candles depending on the distance. So, at a distance of one megaparsec, the 
>>> expansion rate is 70 km/sec; at two megaparsecs the expansion rate is 140 
>>> km/sec; and so on. This suggests the rate of expansion is greater as we go 
>>> back in time; or conversely, that the rate of expansion is slower as we go 
>>> forward in time. How is this reconciled with the 1998 measurements that the 
>>> rate of expansion is actually speeding up? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b731200-4929-4ae2-8b03-21e3da54fbbbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Ron DeSantis and the invisible Man in the sky

[Lawrence Crowell]

Makes me nauseous.

LC

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 4:49:41 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> I just found this campaign ad for Ron DeSantis, it mentions "God" 10 times 
> in just 96 seconds and claims that DeSantis is God's gift to the American 
> people.
>
> And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said: 
> 'I need a protector.' So God made a fighter 
> 
>
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e868c60-0d72-4f8a-be35-93829820e43dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hubble's Constant

[Lawrence Crowell]

Red shift data from supernovae SN1 give H = 74km/sec-Mpc. The velocity of a 
region at distance d is v = Hd. Using the CMB data H = 70km/sec-Mpc. The 
two data points appears distinct at a rather high sigma.

LC

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 3:15:15 AM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's measured about 70 km/sec/megaparsec. This is a direct measurement 
> using red shift to measure recessional velocity, and different standard 
> candles depending on the distance. So, at a distance of one megaparsec, the 
> expansion rate is 70 km/sec; at two megaparsecs the expansion rate is 140 
> km/sec; and so on. This suggests the rate of expansion is greater as we go 
> back in time; or conversely, that the rate of expansion is slower as we go 
> forward in time. How is this reconciled with the 1998 measurements that the 
> rate of expansion is actually speeding up? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5cf574b0-0c75-4daa-9342-11551f55a683n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Elon Musk as smart as we thought he was?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:00:50 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 11/25/2022 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Venus may work, but let us verify that it is a dead, hot, world first. Or, 
> as one astronomer called its surface: searing, black, calm. Lifeless.
>
>
> You mean you suspect there is life there? I know nothing about that...
>
>
> It's pretty certain that there's no life on the surface of Venus, where 
> it's hot enough to melt lead.  But there could conceivably be some form of 
> life high up in the atmosphere where temperatures are Earth like.
>
> Brent
>

There are ideas of lofting drones and balloons into the upper atmosphere of 
Venus. The controversy over phosphene, which is a nerve warfare agent, in 
the atmosphere is ongoing. So far nothing has been decided.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6f77ba2f-9fb8-4a32-9a2e-81e396f1b063n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Map of Mathematical Models?

[Lawrence Crowell]

Before you do this you need to come up with a systematic way of organizing 
them by categories. This would require some sort of systematic logic, which 
if you are working in pure mathematics might be etale or Grothendieke 
category cohomology. If so, this might have to be cross-referenced with 
some other categorical system based on either applicable area of work and 
so forth.

LC

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-6 Mindey I. wrote:

> *How would we go about creating a referencible repository of mathematical 
> models?*
>
> Mathematical formulas used for science are a world-modeling tool useful in 
> imagining and decision making. However, entering formula is different in 
> each CAS  software 
> systems (like Maple, Mathematica, SageMath, Sympy, Maxima, R, GeoGebra, 
> etc.) is different, meaning that every time want to use a function or 
> equation in context of another CAS system, we have to manually enter or 
> rewrite the same formula in other syntactic rules, which is 
> attention+time-consuming. It's like having one address, and looking it up 
> on each different geographical maps application manually. It has to be 
> automated. Geographers, in the development of Wikipedia, had solved this 
> via a straightforward script, called GeoHack script 
> ,
>  
> tha gives a list of links to open geographic coordinates in a set of 
> different map providers. Can we have something like coordinates for 
> mathematical formulae?
>
> Number theorists have catalogued 
> 
>  the 
> integer sequences by building "The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer 
> Sequences" - oeis.org, so today, we can say "Positive Integers" is the 
> ID: A27 , or "Non-negative integers" is the 
> ID: A005843 , and so on.
>
> However, in the rest of mathematics, physics, chemistry and lifesciences 
> this isn't the case. While we have repositories of genomes with each gene 
> ID, there seem to be no IDs for the important relationships like "Taylor's 
> expansion", "Ohm's Law", "Bayes theorem", "Combined gas law", "Pythagora's 
> theorem", "Relativistic rocket equation" or pretty much any other important 
> relationship, there's no ID or a coordinates for that formula.
>
> Do you know any systematic index or map of mathematical models online?
>
> What such map should be? Link to any ideas and projects about creating 
> such an map.
>
> Here is my thoughts on creating such a map:
> https://wefindx.com/method/178001/ (should I repost it here?)
>
> What would be your thoughts?
>
> --
> Mindey
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29646e9a-5af9-48f3-98e8-df54b247e078n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Kinematics vs Dynamics

[Lawrence Crowell]

SR works for accelerated frames. In fact a static accelerated frame is just 
a set of Lorentz boosts; just kinematics in a way.

LC

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:47:47 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> So, when it's claimed that SR can be applied to accelerating frames, does 
> this only apply to kinematics, which is what some physicists claim? AG
>
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:52:01 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> Kinematics are about what are the physical observables. Dynamics is about 
>> how they evolve given boundary and initial conditions.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:24:18 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the difference? TY 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/260595c1-dcb4-4481-80c8-546ebf717718n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Thanksgiving

[Lawrence Crowell]

Happy T-day.

LC

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:46:10 AM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> It's a day to remember and to thank all my Everything friends for the 
> stimulating and informative conversations we've had.  Enjoy your 
> Thanksgiving Day with friends and family, as I will.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86b870f3-2e5a-4c2c-ba5d-d253460c855bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Kinematics vs Dynamics

[Lawrence Crowell]

Kinematics are about what are the physical observables. Dynamics is about 
how they evolve given boundary and initial conditions.

LC

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:24:18 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> What's the difference? TY 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b76ec118-ad84-4b15-b871-5f737bd805dfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath

[Lawrence Crowell]

Tipler went a bit off the edge.

LC

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 4:30:41 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Well, JC, JC is just alright we me, though I suspect unlike Frank, I 
> suspect that His teaching after it was adopted by the Romanized Greeks, 
> became the religion of Empire, of the Romans! For me, this is akin to 
> quibbling. The divergent theologies thing.
>
> I liked that FT explained the NT miracles via particle physics. He does do 
> legit work helping with a small experimental physics project this year, 
> searching for a double peak in the CMB, indicating how there is an 
> inceptual diff, tween matter & antimatter. 
>
> Last, for a guy shooting for something beyond the Standard Model for human 
> extinction, yourself, let's not be too hasty with thowing out the baby with 
> the bath water.
>
>
>
> Sent from the all new AOL app for Android 
> 
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:39 AM, John Clark
>  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:05 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *> Benjamin?*
>
> * Test *
> *Ions*
> *Protons*
> *Leptions*
> *Energetically, via *
> *Radiation*
>
> *Ok, the first letters all together spell TIPLER. If I recall he is still 
> a convinced Christian, *
>
>
> Yes, in 2007 the poor man went a little funny in the head, you know, just 
> a little funny,  and he went and did a silly thing; he wrote a book saying 
> we should look for divine DNA on the Shroud of Turin and check for 
> radiation around the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary that was caused by an 
> intense beam of neutrinos that must have shot out of the bottom of her feet 
> as she ascended into heaven.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> cdq
>
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0HYacCOiZPT6X%3DX3Nugy7gr21iU%2BRh%3DdkTb4TDEqH6nw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8553d05-04fb-42f2-b4b8-309df51c1d6bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Elon Musk as smart as we thought he was?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I got this off of FB as an account by an intern.

LC

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 3:31:07 PM UTC-6 telmo wrote:

>
>
> On 23. Nov 2022, at 22:22, John Clark  wrote:
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 3:51 PM Telmo Menezes  
> wrote:
>
>
>> *> What is the source of this, can you say?*
>>
>
> Huh? The man worked there and he's telling us what he saw. Who do you 
> think was the source?  
>
>
> It’s a png, so I figured it could be some file making the rounds. Can also 
> be a way to make the message not searchable on google. I am inclined to 
> believe in such a scenario at this point, just curious.
>
> Telmo
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> l2b
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2pM7%2BH4ndL46gwRuee%3DD-%2BGFtZpFTwg%2BOb3LYqD3ag5A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5249fa7e-0a16-44cb-9477-8ed9eaf68d19n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Elon Musk as smart as we thought he was?

[Lawrence Crowell]

Musk has a BS degree from U-Penn (as I recall) which means he is probably 
smarter than most. However, all of his corporate successes have been built 
by others, from Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla etc. The engineering of these were 
done my other people, and Musk just had the money to become majority 
shareholder. With respect to Twitter, I somewhat suspect he is 
intentionally demolishing the company.

LC

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:00:35 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Many had thought Elon Musk was some sort of transcendental genius and even 
> I thought he must be a pretty smart cookie, but when I heard he was 
> spending $44 billion to buy a company as silly as Twitter I felt it might 
> be time to reconsider my judgment. Could Mr. Musk really not find a better 
> use for that $44 billion in Tesla or SpaceX? Alternatively, with that much 
> money he could've started a new company that would be a world leader in the 
> field of AI or Quantum Computing, but instead he bought Twitter so people 
> could continue to send tweets about Taylor Swift and Donald Trump could get 
> his account back. As if that wasn't bad enough he completely bungled the 
> purchase, after agreeing to buy the piece of crap he tried to back out of 
> the deal but it was too late; and as soon as he took control he fired more 
> than half the employees, an even greater percentage among the engineering 
> staff, and then belatedly realized the company would fall apart without 
> some of them and try to hire them back, but with company morale at an all 
> time low few agreed to come back to a toxic workplace and would prefer 
> unemployment. He seems like he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and is 
> just flailing around doing things at random and hoping that something works.
>
>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> i6g
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/046fd53a-4c3a-4742-a428-f9a24fd15a96n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics Without Probability

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 2:40:09 PM UTC-6 jessem wrote:

> One result that might lend itself to a hypothetical frequentist take on QM 
> probabilities is discussed by David Z Albert on p. 237-238 of the book The 
> Cosmos of Science, those pages can be read at 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=_HgF3wfADJIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q&f=false
>  
> . He considers a scenario where a measuring device is interacting with an 
> infinite series of identically prepared quantum systems, and creating a 
> "pointer state" that tells you just the fraction of those systems that 
> showed a certain result (like an electron being spin-up), and he considers 
> what happens if we analyze this scenario without invoking the collapse 
> postulate or the Born rule, instead just modeling the measurements as 
> entanglement between the measuring system and the system being measured. 
> After a finite number of trials the pointer will be in a superposition of 
> states, but in the infinite limit, all the amplitude becomes concentrated 
> on the eigenstate of the pointer measurement operator where the pointer 
> shows the correct quantum-mechanical probability (for example, "1/2 of all 
> trials showed spin-up").
>
> This type of collapse-free derivation of something like probability in the 
> infinite limit is also discussed in section 5 of the paper at 
> https://www.academia.edu/6975159/Quantum_dispositions_and_the_notion_of_measurement
>  
> starting on p. 12, apparently the result is known as "Mittelstaedt's 
> theorem". I suppose this result can't really explain why we seem to see 
> definite outcomes (as opposed to superpositions) after a finite number of 
> trials without some additional QM interpretation, but it at least has a 
> "flavor" reminiscent of hypothetical frequentism.
>
>
I am not one to engage a lot in these arguments. I see quantum mechanics 
has having a limited number of postulates. These are:

Quantum amplitudes are complex valued and have modulus squares that are 
probabilities.

Observable outcomes are the eigenvalues of Hermitian or self-adjoint 
operators Aψ = aψ.

Transformations of quantum states and their evolution are defined by 
unitary operators ψ' = Uψ and ψ(t) = U(t)ψ(0), which are generated by 
self-adjoint operators.

The Born rule, which is similar to the Euclid 5th axiom in that people 
think it should be provable from the other 3 axioms.

Whether QM is Bayesian or frequentist is rather related to the question of 
whether it is ψ-epistemic or ψ-ontic respectively. I do not think either 
stance is provable within the structure of QM, or observable by 
experimentation. The Copenhagen and Qubism interpretations are 
ψ-epistemological while the Everettian Many Worlds, transactional, Bohm and 
some others are ψ-ontological interpretations. Which ever one you want you 
can freely choose. I have some rather deep ideas about this with respect to 
the unprovability of quantum interpretations.

LC
 

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:54 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are two concepts of probability and statistics, Bayesianism and 
>> frequentism (orthodox view), which formulate probability in somewhat 
>> different ways. I would say that quantum mechanics might be the most 
>> rigorous definition of probability. I would be tempted to say it is more 
>> Bayesian than frequentist. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 8:15:19 PM UTC-6 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>>
>>> On 22-11-2022 02:47, Brent Meeker wrote: 
>>> > On 11/21/2022 5:12 PM, smitra wrote: 
>>> >> The problem lies with the notion of probability, he explains here 
>>> that 
>>> >> it cannot refer to anything in the physics world as an exact 
>>> >> statement: 
>>> >> 
>>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s 
>>> >> 
>>> >> That's then a problem for a fundamental theory of physics as such a 
>>> >> theory must refer to statements about nature that are exactly true. 
>>> > 
>>> > Who says so?  Physics never makes exact measurements.  Why should the 
>>> > theory do something that the physics can't?  Deutsch is like the 
>>> > scholastics, he thinks physics is just a branch of mathematical logic. 
>>> > 
>>> > Brent 
>>>
>>> But physics cannot implement a rigorous notion of probability. So, that 
>>> then makes QM in the traditional formulation problematic. 
>>>
>>> Saibal 
>>>
>> -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath

[Lawrence Crowell]

The Torah is a compendium of mythic narratives that most often are about 
asking questions and making allegorical statements. The story of Adam and 
Eve is about growing up. When created (born) they are tied to God (Mother) 
and then later they start to move away. They eat the fruit of the tree of 
knowledge and "Their eyes were opened," they began to reach adulthood. The 
whole "forbidden fruit" thing is a setup, they were enticed to eat it and 
to then enter into maturity where the world become complex. This is what 
happens to all of us when we grow up.

LC

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 7:31:44 PM UTC-6 Samiya wrote:

> Adam's Attempt to Improve upon Allah's Creation 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-iii.html
>  
>
>
> Corruption of Creation 
> http://expeditionthink.blogspot.com/2022/09/corruption-of-creation.html 
>
>
> On 23-Nov-2022, at 1:34 AM, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
>
>  
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*] The website below in previous post has nothing to do 
> with Koran *vis a vis* Science.
>
> Instead read:
>
>1. “The genetic and biochemical determinants of mRNA degradation rates 
>in mammals”  Vikram Agarwal, David Kelley
>
> doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.18.484474
>
>1. https://www.nature.com/articles/news990204-2 Published: 04 February 
>1999.Six million years of degradation Henry Gee 
>
> Evidence for the unusually high rate of genetic mutation in the human 
> genome - as well as that of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee 
> and gorilla - is reported in Nature by Adam Eyre-Walker of the University 
> of Sussex, and Peter D. Keightley of the University of Edinburgh, UK.
>
>  
>
> What evidence is in Koran for  “Genetic Entropy” to millions of years of 
> trans-speciation qua Evolution? [The DNA information (language) has a 
> four-letter alphabet (C,G,A,T),  some letters are arranged into 
> three-letter “words” called codons]. A large hunk of human DNA is 
> non-coding, not in the form of codons and does not require amino acid 
> sequences. Scientists have determined this rate in humans in many studies 
> as between 75 and 175 mutations per generation. [*Nachman, M. W. and S. 
> L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. 
> Genetics. 156 (1): 297-304*; *Campbell, C. D. and E. E. Eichler. 2013. 
> Properties and rates of germline mutations in humans. Trends in Genetics. 
> 29 (10): 575-584**]*.
>
>  Commonsense agrees with science, not *WAMP-the-Ingrate, *that 
>  “Genetic Entropy” rates point to a limited number of generations, i.e. 
> limited not millions of years of species. Functions related to food, air, 
> water, motility etc. in different species do not show common ancestry. That 
> is the logical fallacy of “Affirming the consequent, or converse error, 
> fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency*,”  *
>
> *(WAMP = World Acade-Media Pagan(ism) *
>
> *Philip Benjamin   *
>
> 
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  *On 
> Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2022 10:29 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath
>
>  
> Gamma Rays, Visible Light & The Electromagnetic Spectrum  
>
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2018/11/gamma-rays-visible-light.html 
> 
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> On 22-Nov-2022, at 8:39 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> 
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:05 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
> *> **Benjamin?*
>
>  
>
> *Test *
>
> *Ions*
>
> *Protons*
>
> *Leptions*
>
> *Energetically, via *
>
> *Radiation*
>
>  
>
> *Ok, the first letters all together spell TIPLER. If I recall he is still 
> a convinced Christian, *
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB5264896468307EE92673EED4A80D9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro

Re: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:

> [*Philip Benjamin*] The website below in previous post has nothing to do 
> with Koran *vis a vis* Science.
>
> Instead read:
>
>1. “The genetic and biochemical determinants of mRNA degradation rates 
>in mammals”  Vikram Agarwal, David Kelley
>
> doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.18.484474
>
>1. https://www.nature.com/articles/news990204-2 Published: 04 February 
>1999.Six million years of degradation Henry Gee 
>
> Evidence for the unusually high rate of genetic mutation in the human 
> genome - as well as that of our closest living relatives, the chimpanzee 
> and gorilla - is reported in Nature by Adam Eyre-Walker of the University 
> of Sussex, and Peter D. Keightley of the University of Edinburgh, UK.
>
>  
>
> What evidence is in Koran for  “Genetic Entropy” to millions of years of 
> trans-speciation qua Evolution? [The DNA information (language) has a 
> four-letter alphabet (C,G,A,T),  some letters are arranged into 
> three-letter “words” called codons]. A large hunk of human DNA is 
> non-coding, not in the form of codons and does not require amino acid 
> sequences. Scientists have determined this rate in humans in many studies 
> as between 75 and 175 mutations per generation. [*Nachman, M. W. and S. 
> L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. 
> Genetics. 156 (1): 297-304*; *Campbell, C. D. and E. E. Eichler. 2013. 
> Properties and rates of germline mutations in humans. Trends in Genetics. 
> 29 (10): 575-584**]*.
>
>  Commonsense agrees with science, not *WAMP-the-Ingrate, *that 
>  “Genetic Entropy” rates point to a limited number of generations, i.e. 
> limited not millions of years of species. Functions related to food, air, 
> water, motility etc. in different species do not show common ancestry. That 
> is the logical fallacy of “Affirming the consequent, or converse error, 
> fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency*,”  *
>
> *(WAMP = World Acade-Media Pagan(ism) *
>
> *Philip Benjamin   *
>

You are completely ignoring selection process.

LC
 

> 
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  *On 
> Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2022 10:29 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath
>
>  
> Gamma Rays, Visible Light & The Electromagnetic Spectrum  
>
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2018/11/gamma-rays-visible-light.html 
> 
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> On 22-Nov-2022, at 8:39 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
> 
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:05 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
> *> **Benjamin?*
>
>  
>
> *Test *
>
> *Ions*
>
> *Protons*
>
> *Leptions*
>
> *Energetically, via *
>
> *Radiation*
>
>  
>
> *Ok, the first letters all together spell TIPLER. If I recall he is still 
> a convinced Christian, *
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30905aac-7da6-4321-84d0-dd169308df38n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics Without Probability

[Lawrence Crowell]

There are two concepts of probability and statistics, Bayesianism and 
frequentism (orthodox view), which formulate probability in somewhat 
different ways. I would say that quantum mechanics might be the most 
rigorous definition of probability. I would be tempted to say it is more 
Bayesian than frequentist. 

LC

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 8:15:19 PM UTC-6 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

> On 22-11-2022 02:47, Brent Meeker wrote:
> > On 11/21/2022 5:12 PM, smitra wrote:
> >> The problem lies with the notion of probability, he explains here that 
> >> it cannot refer to anything in the physics world as an exact 
> >> statement:
> >> 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s
> >> 
> >> That's then a problem for a fundamental theory of physics as such a 
> >> theory must refer to statements about nature that are exactly true.
> > 
> > Who says so?  Physics never makes exact measurements.  Why should the
> > theory do something that the physics can't?  Deutsch is like the
> > scholastics, he thinks physics is just a branch of mathematical logic.
> > 
> > Brent
>
> But physics cannot implement a rigorous notion of probability. So, that 
> then makes QM in the traditional formulation problematic.
>
> Saibal
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54ebbfed-1a27-4b4e-bcc1-0cdf1186398bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics Without Probability

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 6:29:00 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:52 AM smitra  wrote:
>
>> Probability cannot be a fundamental concept in physics as explained 
>> here:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc
>
>
> I'm afraid Deutsch is a bit too glib in this lecture. He hasn't, despite 
> his best efforts, removed probability from physics. For example, in quantum 
> mechanics, he has not explained why, if one measures the z-spin of a 
> spin-half particle prepared in an eigenstate of x-spin, one gets only one 
> result -- either z-spin-up or z-spin-down. If one has eliminated 
> probability, one should be able to explain which result one gets, and why. 
> It is no solution to say that with many-worlds, that both results are 
> obtained by disjoint copies of the experimenter. The experimenter is just 
> one copy, and one would have to explain the result for each individual 
> separately. Many worlds does not explain why I, for example, see only 
> z-spin-up and not z-spin-down. To make sense of that, we need a viable 
> concept of probability and the Born rule.
>
> Bruce
>

As I see it quantum mechanics has features of being a type of Bayesian 
update system with mutual information. A single system can give a string of 
outputs, say by running an electron through a sequence of Stern-Gerlach 
experiments, which will give a statistical distribution of outcomes based 
on the orientation of the different SG apparatuses. However, to understand 
the statistical properties one must perform this experiment multiple times, 
for to assume any string of outcomes with a single electron gives the total 
statistical distribution is to assume the ergodic principle. Bayesian 
statistics is not entirely consistent with the ergodic principle. I see 
this as holding regardless of what interpretation of quantum mechanics one 
holds to. With science in general experiments are performed on multiple 
systems and with repeated trials, whether the experiments test the 
effectiveness of a medication or are looking for the Higgs particle. 
Science addresses nature not in some existential level according to what 
always "is" with a system, but rather as a set of outcomes of various 
trials. 

The nature of quantum wave function is not explicitly knowable. Bohr said 
the wave function is just a predictive device meant to predict probability 
outcomes, and it has no effectiveness at telling us how an outcome obtains. 
This is the epistemic perspective. Everettian MWI is an ontological 
interpretation, but again it gives us no information for predicting any 
particular outcome. This appears in what I have seen so far of this what 
Deutsch is trying to argue. In effect this is an appeal to some type of 
local hidden variable. Since neither epistemic or ontic interpretations 
tell us anything about how an outcome applies, the existential nature of 
the wave function is not decidable.

A quantum interpretation is not something that is proven by quantum 
mechanics. It can only be consistent with quantum mechanics, say in that it 
does not contradict quantum mechanical results. The Bohm QM interpretation 
originally proposed a local hidden variable, but since this contradicts QM 
and so the Bohmians accepted a non-local hidden variable or "beable," 
within a rather clumsy system. Deutsch is attempting to localize a hidden 
variable IMO.

This interestingly points to issues with quantum gravitation. One of the 
things that is strange is that in cosmology a lot of what we think of as 
hard facts about physics do not apply. One of these is conservation of 
energy. There are various types of solutions to the Einstein field 
equation. These are from the close field to far field, Petrov type D 
solutions corresponding to black holes, type II and III solutions that 
correspond to intermediate gravity field, and type N solutions that are far 
field solutions and gravitational waves or radiation. These have dynamics 
on a contact manifold determined by Nöther’s theorem and Killing vectors. 
These also have a distribution of occurrences in the world. The universe 
does not, and further it has only one outcome. Quantum cosmology is not 
something that fits within a standard scientific paradigm.

All of these ideas of multiverse, or black hole vacuum generation of 
cosmologies and so forth are so red-shifted away that we may never be able 
to observe any consequence of them. This is particularly the case with 
inflation. In effect these sorts of “pre-cosmic” theories may be sort of 
quantum gravitational hidden variables that are completely unobservable.

I think that Deutsch is proposing something that is a type of hidden 
variable that will contradict QM on some level. Deutsch has proposed these 
things before, where at one time he said there splitting of the worlds was 
determined by some scalar field that an experimenter could observe and 
predict the outcome.


LC

-- 
You received this message because you are su

Re: FW: WAMP-the-Ingrate of Thanksgiving Sabbath

[Lawrence Crowell]

You would make a nice case study for some research program in abnormal 
psychology. Damned if the stuff you write is not just delusional nonsense.

LC

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 1:42:06 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:

> *WAMP-the-Ingrate For Thanksgiving Sabbath *
>
> *Philip Benjamin   * *November 2022*
>
> *I*nduce! Increase! Iniquities intensify immorally
>
> *N*othingness nor nonexistence needs no newness   
>
> *G*enerating gravels, grass, genomes, growing gifts
>
> *R*eturn reprobates, revolutions rot, revivals renew  
>
> *A*waken! Abolish abysmally abnormal assumptions
>
> *T*ruth trashed, teaching thrashed, tradition trounced
>
> Evolution eminently eroding, ending evidential effects 
>
> *S*illy! Sanctify Sola Scriptura sabbaths, spirit, soul, soma 
>
> *Philip Benjamin   November 2022*
>
> *  Note: WAMP = World Acade-Media Pagan(ism)*
>
>
> **
>
> *From:* Philip Benjamin  Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com  
> *Subject:* Is Theanthropism Rational (scientific)? 
>
>  [Thursday, September 15, 2022  Posted by Samiya Illias at 12:02 AM 
> Allah has not taken any son   
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2022/09/allah-has-not-taken-any-son.html]
>  
>  
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*] (Note: *This post at this above site is not a 
> scientific treatise, only Quranic opinion**).*
>
>*Philip Benjamin*
>
>Humanity does not ever have BECOMING divinity  
>
>Evolution is an illusory lingo for trans-speciation
>
>One species does not undergo trans-speciation 
>
>Aseity is of a necessary BEING, not of dead matter  
>
>Omnipotent is potent to be a theanthropic Zygote
>
>*Three infinities* are one *infinity*, so also three *fields*
>
>Adonai *(plural)* YHWH (*singular*) Elohim (*uni-plural*)
>
>Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles concur YHWH Zygote
>
>Bethlehem-Judah is the predicted geographic locale
>
> Only the Sentencer can cancel the ‘Sentence of Death’
>
>That Sentence by vicarious death of the Theanthropos
>
> *   Philip Benjamin Christmas 2022 *
>
> *   PS. ‘**Dead’ Critical Race Theory and resulting ‘Woke Culture’ *
>
> *  is the antithesis of Augustinian ‘regeneration’ history and *
>
> *‘Two Great Awakenings’ are the basis of American Culture*
>
> *   which was the envy of pagan Marxist Joseph Stalin who first   *
>
> *coined the phrase “American Exceptionalism”—not oppression*
>
> *but liberty. It is akin to the love of Sabbath/Sabbatical, but 
> hate *
>
> *   of its only historical or astronomical or planetary source *
>
> *  of the Book of Genesis—a specialty of WAMP-the-Ingrate*
>
> *[Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] *
>
> * Philip Benjamin  *
>
>  
>
>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/670f4604-11d1-4419-8342-bd32ecde3910n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Ah, and Minkowski's higher dimension appears to require Willem DeSitter to 
> step in and re-normalize the view from such an observer. My thinking is, 
> would this be some sort of tachyonic field in some kind of Lorentzian 
> Manifold? You may know, but I cannot. 
>
>
This discussion is splintering off into a range of utterly unconnected 
topic, from de Sitter spacetime to Hogarth-Malamet hypercomputation. This 
is completely disconnected, and it is delving far more into science fiction 
than science.

LC
 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2022 6:57 am
> Subject: Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of 
> reference? TY.
>
> What I outline is the idea of the Rindler wedge, or the spacetime 
> according to an accelerated observer. The Unruh effect is a quantum field 
> theoretic result on how quantum fields on either side of the induced 
> particle horizon have no complete description according to the accelerated 
> observer. As a result the Minkowski vacuum becomes vacuum plus a thermal 
> distribution of bosons. 
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 8:41:49 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com 
> wrote:
>
> Acceleration at the speed of (G)ravity is a bit unconfirmed, though 
> widely, accepted by the physics community to be the same as that of photons 
> through an absolute vacuum. Meanwhile, we can also address through 
> relativity this question: What is the aggregate speed of T = time? At a 
> cosmological black hole time stops. At just under the speed of a photon in 
> absolute vacuum ,the speed of time also enters a null set at the observer 
> pov.  
>
> It is also possible through the miracle or quantum gravity that the 
> observer moment splits into many histories (Hawking-Hartle). 
> Thus, the Reference Frame is made flesh through Everett-DeWitt-Wheeler 
> equations, as MWI flourishes, via frame dragging. 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 9:10 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of 
> reference? TY.
>
> Coordinate time variables dt = cosh(gs)ds and dx= sinh(gs)ds are such that 
> dt^2 - dx^2 =  (cosh^2(gs) - sinh^2(gs))ds^2 = ds^2, and defines a flat 
> space metric for special relativity. These coordinates define an 
> accelerated frame with acceleration g. 
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com 
> wrote:
>
> Can Ref Frames be addressed with General Relativity, also? Travel very 
> fast, time slows down. Travel to a supermassive location, time slows down. 
> The thing then is time, which Julian Barbour says it doesn't exist-which I 
> understand. What exists is motion. Even motion at a quantum scale, like the 
> bopping of electrons and photons. They move nonetheless, somebody in Italy, 
> once said. 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 7:05 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of 
> reference? TY.
>
> Accelerated frames can be addressed with special relativity. 
>
> LC
>
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> EOM.
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>  
> .
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/704be6ad-b69e-496b-ba24-f1bb282cc688n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/704be6ad-b69e-496b-ba24-f1bb282cc688n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro

Re: NYTimes.com: We Fact-Checked Trump’s Speech

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 5:22:44 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:11 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > *You cannot take anything t'Rump says as real. Even words like "and" 
>> and "the" are lies. *
>
>
> All politicians lie from time to time but I have never heard a politician, 
> or any human being for that matter, lie with the machine gun rapidity of 
> Donald J Trump. And to me what is even more astounding is that most Trump 
> zombies know this but they just don't care. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>

It is amazing. However, t'Rump had a hell of a booze party going, but now 
all these right-wingers have to get sober. I suspect there will be a loss 
of followers over time. Don-the-Con t'Rump is probably used up.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0fdff054-1930-469d-96cb-fce8ee5b78cen%40googlegroups.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: We Fact-Checked Trump’s Speech

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:50:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> You don't need to take Don's word on anything. But you'll have to take 
> your fellow progressives WaPo (owned by Bezos) when, after the recent 
> election, the FBI says no money motive in the documents. Like there is 
> dealings with Hunter taking cash from China and Russia, but for the Don 
> protecting himself from getting caught..no! 
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/14/trump-motive-mar-a-lago-documents/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
>
>
> The Times finally admits Hunter Biden's laptop is real (nypost.com) 
> <https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/the-times-finally-admits-hunter-bidens-laptop-is-real/>
>
> So, if Don can't win, he's no damn good to me. I know a guy who could but 
> that's for later. 
>
>
>
Amazing how conservatives continue to make an issue of Hunter's laptop and 
Hillary's emails, while seem to excuse t'Rump's incitement of the overthrow 
of an elected government.

LC
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 7:11 pm
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: We Fact-Checked Trump’s Speech
>
> You cannot take anything t'Rump says as real. Even words like "and" and 
> "the" are lies.  
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:55:15 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber, 
> you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.
>
> We Fact-Checked Trump’s Speech
>
> Former President Donald J. Trump made a number of claims about his 
> policies and President Biden’s record. We checked them for accuracy.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/us/trump-speech-fact-check.html?unlocked_article_code=hvvjMLs5DcFQUdgUvHItqjYjUBtGZhboSyFm-Fe2PsqcHd0vmyNd5YNvTsnz5MkiCDsdf4oFa4KBs6LY91OyD_cwgHj8LBPKkpzXi5gXpdk8z_X5l7eez_FMSfDR6abDF-QRPUyHbG8DOH-glzbqiVB3eJRAKB9GjrhpdEREuDCZhdqMxru_kgyvSoFz3H13PqQ6BXpF4aibGLFdyG3_N4iH9Qy0hIaaAVPm-QRJvNVWKrVI87TZx4riaiKTzvgBbizRDIbmnP1FH4f0obKvNWAc5K1wjuQCKp-brBziKi07uvUTwDAgjIDbJBqWwJZEfGAi50rZGUEHeNoN&smid=em-share
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c01e658-87c2-4a29-85a2-d90a0f3f9110n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c01e658-87c2-4a29-85a2-d90a0f3f9110n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>  
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/983b7637-c355-47b8-8ede-79d8edbdf055n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

[Lawrence Crowell]

What I outline is the idea of the Rindler wedge, or the spacetime according 
to an accelerated observer. The Unruh effect is a quantum field theoretic 
result on how quantum fields on either side of the induced particle horizon 
have no complete description according to the accelerated observer. As a 
result the Minkowski vacuum becomes vacuum plus a thermal distribution of 
bosons.

LC

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 8:41:49 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Acceleration at the speed of (G)ravity is a bit unconfirmed, though 
> widely, accepted by the physics community to be the same as that of photons 
> through an absolute vacuum. Meanwhile, we can also address through 
> relativity this question: What is the aggregate speed of T = time? At a 
> cosmological black hole time stops. At just under the speed of a photon in 
> absolute vacuum ,the speed of time also enters a null set at the observer 
> pov.  
>
> It is also possible through the miracle or quantum gravity that the 
> observer moment splits into many histories (Hawking-Hartle). 
> Thus, the Reference Frame is made flesh through Everett-DeWitt-Wheeler 
> equations, as MWI flourishes, via frame dragging. 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 9:10 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of 
> reference? TY.
>
> Coordinate time variables dt = cosh(gs)ds and dx= sinh(gs)ds are such that 
> dt^2 - dx^2 =  (cosh^2(gs) - sinh^2(gs))ds^2 = ds^2, and defines a flat 
> space metric for special relativity. These coordinates define an 
> accelerated frame with acceleration g. 
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com 
> wrote:
>
> Can Ref Frames be addressed with General Relativity, also? Travel very 
> fast, time slows down. Travel to a supermassive location, time slows down. 
> The thing then is time, which Julian Barbour says it doesn't exist-which I 
> understand. What exists is motion. Even motion at a quantum scale, like the 
> bopping of electrons and photons. They move nonetheless, somebody in Italy, 
> once said. 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 7:05 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of 
> reference? TY.
>
> Accelerated frames can be addressed with special relativity. 
>
> LC
>
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> EOM.
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>  
> .
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/704be6ad-b69e-496b-ba24-f1bb282cc688n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/704be6ad-b69e-496b-ba24-f1bb282cc688n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b52714e6-f6e4-4275-afae-3910219f3b6an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

[Lawrence Crowell]

Coordinate time variables dt = cosh(gs)ds and dx= sinh(gs)ds are such that 
dt^2 - dx^2 =  (cosh^2(gs) - sinh^2(gs))ds^2 = ds^2, and defines a flat 
space metric for special relativity. These coordinates define an 
accelerated frame with acceleration g.

LC

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:14:26 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Can Ref Frames be addressed with General Relativity, also? Travel very 
> fast, time slows down. Travel to a supermassive location, time slows down. 
> The thing then is time, which Julian Barbour says it doesn't exist-which I 
> understand. What exists is motion. Even motion at a quantum scale, like the 
> bopping of electrons and photons. They move nonetheless, somebody in Italy, 
> once said. 
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 7:05 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of 
> reference? TY.
>
> Accelerated frames can be addressed with special relativity. 
>
> LC
>
> On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> EOM.
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>  
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/704be6ad-b69e-496b-ba24-f1bb282cc688n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: We Fact-Checked Trump’s Speech

[Lawrence Crowell]

You cannot take anything t'Rump says as real. Even words like "and" and 
"the" are lies. 

LC

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:55:15 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber, 
> you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.
>
> We Fact-Checked Trump’s Speech
>
> Former President Donald J. Trump made a number of claims about his 
> policies and President Biden’s record. We checked them for accuracy.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/us/trump-speech-fact-check.html?unlocked_article_code=hvvjMLs5DcFQUdgUvHItqjYjUBtGZhboSyFm-Fe2PsqcHd0vmyNd5YNvTsnz5MkiCDsdf4oFa4KBs6LY91OyD_cwgHj8LBPKkpzXi5gXpdk8z_X5l7eez_FMSfDR6abDF-QRPUyHbG8DOH-glzbqiVB3eJRAKB9GjrhpdEREuDCZhdqMxru_kgyvSoFz3H13PqQ6BXpF4aibGLFdyG3_N4iH9Qy0hIaaAVPm-QRJvNVWKrVI87TZx4riaiKTzvgBbizRDIbmnP1FH4f0obKvNWAc5K1wjuQCKp-brBziKi07uvUTwDAgjIDbJBqWwJZEfGAi50rZGUEHeNoN&smid=em-share
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c01e658-87c2-4a29-85a2-d90a0f3f9110n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

[Lawrence Crowell]

Accelerated frames can be addressed with special relativity.

LC

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:14:46 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> EOM.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fb9eca5-7bea-4fe9-bfce-72c81d3341a1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What If Humanity Is Among The First Spacefaring Civilizations?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote:

>
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: everyth...@googlegroups.com  On Behalf 
> Of Tomasz Rola 
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:43 AM 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> Subject: Re: What If Humanity Is Among The First Spacefaring 
> Civilizations? 
> [Philip Benjamin] 
> How will be the first FUNERAL of a duper super spacefaring "civilized" 
> space person? Or is s/he eternal-- never dying? What "command" from that 
> space director (boss?) for immortality? Will the spacefaring civilization 
> also die (perhaps with insubordination). 
> Note: The command was 7-day workweek was from "Sola Scriptura" and nowhere 
> else from the whole universe! WAMP-the-Ingrate ingratiate with themselves 
> on Sabbath/Sabbatical, though the command for its origin is only in Sola 
> Scriptura and is hated! So also was the FIRST decree or verdict for the 
> "Sentence of Death" for human insubordination and subsequent funerals. 
> Philip Benjamin


Complete insanity; you are a man of delusions. I will say that if Elon Musk 
tries to send people to Mars in his "Starship" that it is likely to not go 
well. The 7 day week is fairly common around the world. Most very ancient 
calendars were lunar based and the subdivision of that was by 4's, and so 
the 7 day week. 

LC
 

>
>
> [Tomasz Rola] 
> "You had not mentioned if it was a satire. I might want to watch something 
> comical titled like this. If it is not a satire, then I presume it is some 
> kind of pompous content. 
> From my point of view, humanity is not spacefaring. It has hardly got its 
> toes wet a bit, shouted "cold" and went back to business as usual. Also, 
> whether there is civilization on the planet might be a bit disputable. When 
> did it started, if ever - was it fifty years after last burning of 
> books/people? If a burning happens this decade, does it mean we are still 
> civilized - or never were?-- 
> Regards, 
> Tomasz Rola 
>
> -- 
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** 
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** 
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** 
> ** ** 
> ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomas...@bigfoot.com ** 
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. 
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Feverything-list%2FY2940OA3tN4rJXmn%2540tau1.ceti.pl&data=05%7C01%7C%7C809b3402492948efe42308dac49abe48%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638038466137608200%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dSrP%2F9d%2FQWMGfqmA2t2j3wooNAX4G%2FYh0fDvdFd5QYM%3D&reserved=0.
>  
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27c4f2c9-2e23-43b8-b29d-db3943d25468n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What If Humanity Is Among The First Spacefaring Civilizations?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 4:25:43 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:20 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> *> I find it interesting that people spend so much time on something we 
>> may never have any hope of knowing. The nearest ETI might be 50 million 
>> light years away. *
>
>
> If ET was that close and was just one century more advanced 
> technologically then we are then we would've spotted it a long time ago 
> even if they didn't know any more about Quantum Mechanics or General 
> Relativity than we do right now. Instead we've looked billions of light 
> years in every direction and we see nothing. Contrary to what Carl Sagan 
> said, I think absence of evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence. 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> 32x
>
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but not proof of absence.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83f06401-6997-4020-abb2-24bbfa2453e3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What If Humanity Is Among The First Spacefaring Civilizations?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I find it interesting that people spend so much time on something we may 
never have any hope of knowing. The nearest ETI might be 50 million light 
years away. 

LC

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> What If Humanity Is Among The First Spacefaring Civilizations? 
> 
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bc53904-bf45-4b18-99ad-1f3329cbfee2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

I am having a hard time making sense of what you wrote. I am not that 
enticed by the idea of hyper-tech ETI in the universe that can control 
whole stars or black holes. I presume that while they may be better than 
us, an almost hopelessly inferior form of intelligent life, they still 
likely have some vulnerability called stupidity.

LC

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:38:56 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> The issue is that it couldn't be random. Random means that it follows the 
> Poincare equations, and that Einstein's ghost is happy with the gravity, 
> Pierre Laplace buys Al some wine, upstairs, Friedmann smiles and all but a 
> few physicists turning quantum into gravity, sweat the numbers and 
> observations. This would be somebody who has no trouble for the last 50K 
> years making solar power viable, sending off rockets, and has even split 
> the atom, some would dare to think.  
>
> These would be smart guys setting and harvesting black holes as an 
> industry. Their reactive gravity and such. It's not just a roll of the 
> gravity and mass, dice. So, lets continue observing and let the astronomers 
> do what they do best, watch. Yeah they need a bigger budget to build better 
> scopes and such. 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2022 8:09 pm
> Subject: Re: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole
>
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 5:27:07 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:42 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> >> But because the sun-like-star and the Black Hole are so much more 
> massive than a planet like the earth couldn't you get a very good 
> approximation by assuming it's just a 2-body problem? After all, the sun 
> the earth and the moon are 3 bodies and yet we can find a very good 
> approximation of where the moon will be 1000 years from now.
>
>  
>
> *> Yes, but that quasi-stability might only last a few million or even 
> just a few thousand years. There could not be a planet stable enough to 
> host life or ETI.*
>
>
> But with 8 planets and millions of less massive objects in orbit around 
> the sun isn't our own solar system just quasi stable?  I don't think 
> anybody has proven that in 1 billion years things might get chaotic and the 
> earth could fall towards the sun or be ejected into an orbit beyond that 
> of Neptune. 
>
>
> There is chaos in the solar system. It is not completely integrable. Henri 
> Poincare won the prize offered by the king of Sweden to solve the stability 
> of the solar system problem. Poincare showed there was no stability. 
> However, there is something called the Lyapunov exponent for the measure of 
> chaos or separation of reality from a truncated set of assumed initial 
> conditions. A putative planet arounda star orbiting a 10 solar mass black 
> hole at around 4AU will have a huge Lyapunov exponent compared to the much 
> tamer solar system.
>
> LC
>  
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> e7r
>
>
>  
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/35913347-2614-4da4-aeca-ab4b1244cf90n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/35913347-2614-4da4-aeca-ab4b1244cf90n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>  
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ee8692b-cbaf-405d-8554-a31ced87149an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 5:27:07 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:42 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> >> But because the sun-like-star and the Black Hole are so much more 
>>> massive than a planet like the earth couldn't you get a very good 
>>> approximation by assuming it's just a 2-body problem? After all, the sun 
>>> the earth and the moon are 3 bodies and yet we can find a very good 
>>> approximation of where the moon will be 1000 years from now.
>>
>>  
>
> *> Yes, but that quasi-stability might only last a few million or even 
>> just a few thousand years. There could not be a planet stable enough to 
>> host life or ETI.*
>>
>
> But with 8 planets and millions of less massive objects in orbit around 
> the sun isn't our own solar system just quasi stable?  I don't think 
> anybody has proven that in 1 billion years things might get chaotic and the 
> earth could fall towards the sun or be ejected into an orbit beyond that 
> of Neptune. 
>
>
There is chaos in the solar system. It is not completely integrable. Henri 
Poincare won the prize offered by the king of Sweden to solve the stability 
of the solar system problem. Poincare showed there was no stability. 
However, there is something called the Lyapunov exponent for the measure of 
chaos or separation of reality from a truncated set of assumed initial 
conditions. A putative planet arounda star orbiting a 10 solar mass black 
hole at around 4AU will have a huge Lyapunov exponent compared to the much 
tamer solar system.

LC
 

> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> e7r
>
>
>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/35913347-2614-4da4-aeca-ab4b1244cf90n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:12 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > Planetary orbits around the sun-like star would not be stable. A planet 
>> around the sun-like star would define nonintegrable 3-body problem.
>>
>
> But because the sun-like-star and the Black Hole are so much more massive 
> than a planet like the earth couldn't you get a very good approximation by 
> assuming it's just a 2-body problem? After all, the sun the earth and the 
> moon are 3 bodies and yet we can find a very good approximation of where 
> the moon will be 1000 years from now. 
>
> John K Claek
>

Yes, but that quasi-stability might only last a few million or even just a 
few thousand years. There could not be a planet stable enough to host life 
or ETI.

LC
 

>
>
>
>
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: John Clark 
>>> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2022 8:32 am
>>> Subject: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole
>>>
>>> The November 2 2022 issue of the journal "Monthly Notices Of The Royal 
>>> Astronomical Society'' reports on the discovery of the nearest Black Hole 
>>> ever found, it's just 1600 light years from Earth, that's 3 times closer 
>>> than the next nearest one. It has nearly 10 times the mass of the sun but 
>>> what makes it unusual is that it's a very calm and quiet Black Hole and is 
>>> not producing any detectable X-rays or radio waves, apparently very little 
>>> matter is currently falling into it. The hole was found by the wobble it 
>>> induced in a G type star very similar to the sun, with the same metallic 
>>> content and with 93% of the sun's mass, that is in orbit around the 
>>> Black Hole. 
>>>
>>> Another unusual thing about it is the orbital period is186.6 days, and 
>>> that's the longest orbital period ever found for a star orbiting a stellar 
>>> mass Black Hole, and its orbit is also the most nearly circular of any ever 
>>> found. The original star that produced the Black Hole must've had at least 
>>> 20 solar masses and exploded in a supernova; so it's a mystery why the 
>>> sun-like star that is now in orbit around the Black Hole looks so normal 
>>> and why its orbit is so nearly circular considering the fact that it had to 
>>> endure a very nearby supernova and the star it's orbiting suddenly lost 
>>> half its original mass during the supernova cataclysm.  
>>>
>>> A Sun-like star orbiting a black hole 
>>> <https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stac3140/6794289?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false>
>>>
>>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>>> sle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3egGyf4HLdrtiCLF%3D01TdYxj%3DrrykbtM99NMaa559qZQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3egGyf4HLdrtiCLF%3D01TdYxj%3DrrykbtM99NMaa559qZQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/db79bdaf-79b2-466f-85a3-afa3812fc9e5n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/db79bdaf-79b2-466f-85a3-afa3812fc9e5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d68c31a-5911-4771-a443-8aad89fec488n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Particle accelerators and microchips

[Lawrence Crowell]

5 GeV in 20cm!?

LC

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 9:07:16 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> In the October 21 2022 issue of the journal PHYSICAL REVIEW X researchers 
> report they were able to build a prototype machine that could accelerate 
> electrons in a straight line until they had 5 billion electron volts of 
> energy in just 20 cm. The LHC accelerates protons in a circle with a 
> circumference of 27,000 meters, it can produce protons that have 13.6 
> trillion electron volts. I figure if they could make a machine longer than 
> their 20 cm prototype that had the same acceleration rate, a straight line 
> linear accelerator would only need to be 544 meters long to make high 
> energy electrons with 13.6 trillion electron volts, the same energy as the 
> LHC's high energy protons.  And high energy electrons are more useful, 
> although harder to make, than high energy protons. And unlike the LHC it 
> wouldn't need any very expensive superconducting magnets.  
>
> One of the most expensive parts of the new Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography 
> Machines are their light sources, a free electron laser is tunable and can 
> produce a very bright light beam from microwaves to well into the  X-ray 
> range, they are certainly capable of producing super bright point sources 
> of extreme ultraviolet light needed for EUV; the trouble is producing 
> electrons with enough energy to do this would be even more expensive than 
> the current method of using vaporize tin, but that could change.  Back in 
> the 1970s researchers made an electron linear accelerator that was 2 miles 
> long and could accelerate electrons up to 50 billion electron volts (with 
> this new technology it would only need to have been 2 meters long). Much 
> more recently they converted the machine into a free electron laser and it 
> works great. Perhaps with this new technology it would be practical to use 
> a free electron laser in chip lithography machines, you'd need high energy 
> electrons to do it but you wouldn't need anything as huge as 13.6 trillion 
> electron volts.
>
> Multi-GeV Electron Bunches from an All-Optical Laser Wakefield Accelerator 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> udd
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b9f3fc6-27db-4b56-9868-5091f4744919n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 6:47:02 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> So going full science fiction on this, a highly, advanced, civilization, 
> has not only controlled the stability of their home star, giving it 
> trillions of years of stellar life, but has, long ahead of this, learned to 
> harvest energy or perhaps wormhole travel, utilizing this black hole!  
> There! 
>
>
>
Planetary orbits around the sun-like star would not be stable. A planet 
around the sun-like star would define nonintegrable 3-body problem. A black 
hole in principle could be harnessed for energy due to its angular 
momentum. Going into a black hole is suicide. A 10 solar mass black hole 
has large Weyl curvature and the tidal force on your body would rip you 
apart before you got within 100,000 km of it. A supermassive black hole 
would have smaller tidal forces, but there is nothing you can find inside 
to escape inevitable end of spacetime itself and death.

LC
 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2022 8:32 am
> Subject: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole
>
> The November 2 2022 issue of the journal "Monthly Notices Of The Royal 
> Astronomical Society'' reports on the discovery of the nearest Black Hole 
> ever found, it's just 1600 light years from Earth, that's 3 times closer 
> than the next nearest one. It has nearly 10 times the mass of the sun but 
> what makes it unusual is that it's a very calm and quiet Black Hole and is 
> not producing any detectable X-rays or radio waves, apparently very little 
> matter is currently falling into it. The hole was found by the wobble it 
> induced in a G type star very similar to the sun, with the same metallic 
> content and with 93% of the sun's mass, that is in orbit around the Black 
> Hole. 
>
> Another unusual thing about it is the orbital period is186.6 days, and 
> that's the longest orbital period ever found for a star orbiting a stellar 
> mass Black Hole, and its orbit is also the most nearly circular of any ever 
> found. The original star that produced the Black Hole must've had at least 
> 20 solar masses and exploded in a supernova; so it's a mystery why the 
> sun-like star that is now in orbit around the Black Hole looks so normal 
> and why its orbit is so nearly circular considering the fact that it had to 
> endure a very nearby supernova and the star it's orbiting suddenly lost 
> half its original mass during the supernova cataclysm.  
>
> A Sun-like star orbiting a black hole 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> sle
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3egGyf4HLdrtiCLF%3D01TdYxj%3DrrykbtM99NMaa559qZQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/db79bdaf-79b2-466f-85a3-afa3812fc9e5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: S​table ​D​iffusion is getting outrageously good

[Lawrence Crowell]

Any short idea of what this is about before I endeavor to watch this?

LC

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Stable Diffusion has improved enormously in just the last few weeks. It's 
> free and open source too! It really shows the power of the open source 
> idea. 
>
> Stable Diffusion Is Getting Outrageously Good! 
> 
>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> pke
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ab3a842-e7bc-49b4-8835-4c2445ad14d9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A sun-like star orbiting a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

I just did a quick Newton/Kepler calculation and found this star is about 
6x10^{11}m or 6x10^8km for the black hole. By comparison Earth is 
1.5x10^8km from the sun. 

LC

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 7:32:57 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> The November 2 2022 issue of the journal "Monthly Notices Of The Royal 
> Astronomical Society'' reports on the discovery of the nearest Black Hole 
> ever found, it's just 1600 light years from Earth, that's 3 times closer 
> than the next nearest one. It has nearly 10 times the mass of the sun but 
> what makes it unusual is that it's a very calm and quiet Black Hole and is 
> not producing any detectable X-rays or radio waves, apparently very little 
> matter is currently falling into it. The hole was found by the wobble it 
> induced in a G type star very similar to the sun, with the same metallic 
> content and with 93% of the sun's mass, that is in orbit around the Black 
> Hole.
>
> Another unusual thing about it is the orbital period is186.6 days, and 
> that's the longest orbital period ever found for a star orbiting a stellar 
> mass Black Hole, and its orbit is also the most nearly circular of any ever 
> found. The original star that produced the Black Hole must've had at least 
> 20 solar masses and exploded in a supernova; so it's a mystery why the 
> sun-like star that is now in orbit around the Black Hole looks so normal 
> and why its orbit is so nearly circular considering the fact that it had to 
> endure a very nearby supernova and the star it's orbiting suddenly lost 
> half its original mass during the supernova cataclysm.  
>
> A Sun-like star orbiting a black hole 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> sle
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5fda88d4-c5e2-46b0-a2ff-9e1ceceab567n%40googlegroups.com.