Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 7:25:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:38 PM, > > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I notice you don't gave a damn about having a non falsifiable theory. >> > > David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his > book "The Ghost

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:45:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:41:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:55:59 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On 13/12/2017 11:41 am, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective > illusion. The dead cat and its history of decomposing for the previous > hour does not materialize out of nothing from the mere act of looking at it. > >

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:27:46 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 PM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective >>> illusion. The dead cat a

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:20:34 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is >> when the box is opened. What a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> * BUT for a nucleus of a radioac

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, > > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is >> when the box is open

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:22:47 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 12:08:35 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:11 PM, > > wrote: > > > ​>> ​ >>> The Equivalence Principle says if >>> ​you >>> ignore tidal effects and you're in a windowless elevator cab there is >>> no way to know if you're sitting on

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:13:49 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:59 PM, > > wrote: > > >>​ >>> A curved line from one wall to the other is longer than a straight line >>> ​,​ >>> and yet when you measure the time it takes for light to do this with >>> your very

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > agrays...@gmail.com > ​ Wrote:​ > > > ​> ​ >> Not a problem. Easily solved. > > > ​*Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the > last 90 years.​ I guess they can relax now.* > > >> ​> ​ >> collap

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:56:59 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> agrays...@gmail.com >> ​ Wrote:​ >> >> >> ​> ​ >>> Not a problem. Easily solved. >> >> >> ​*Well that's a relief, physicists have been worryin

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, Dece

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the ground > or orbiting clock is an inertial frame.AG > > > An orbiting clock is in an inertial frame. An

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> There's a problem applying SR in this situation because neither the >> ground or o

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:36:32 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:39:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrot

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:34:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 6:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:36:32 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:32:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:48:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 12:19 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, > > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I don't see how Wigner's frie

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:58:18 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 11:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:32:22 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 6:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 a

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 8:36:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/17/2017 2:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:21:27 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/16/2017 2:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> There's a problem applying SR in this

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wro

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:51:51 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Invariants are always the important things in physics because they are >> what we can have intersubjective agreement on. >> >> Brent >> > > *IIUC, the field equations are

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 7:18:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Dec 2017, at 01:41, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:51:51 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2017 11:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Invariants are always the importan

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 12:54:50 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 22/12/2017 11:22 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> *If Newton's Law of Gravitation is cova

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:46:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:03:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 2:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:43:21 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict > exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that imply an > INCONSISTENCY in the postulates of QM? TIA. > Does the Heisen

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 7:45:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/21/2017 11:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:46:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/21/2017 4:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 21, 2017 a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 4:39:25 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:43:21 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict >> exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic th

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > My tentative solution to the wave collapse problem is to trash wave > > mechanics (which is not Lorentz invariant) and use Heisenberg

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:49:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800, agrays

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:28:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which > I > > believe is linear in t. AG* > > Yes, it is linear and u

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:44:42 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be > confused > > > with the operator by the same name that preserves in

Re: did Jesus exist

Revisionist BS by Anne O'Reilly? You can attribute it to the author without being subject to crucifixion. So there was no Jesus, no disciples, no Last Supper, no throwing money changers out of the Temple, no Paul who knew the disciples, no women who found the tomb empty, no Mary, no Joseph, no P

Re: did Jesus exist

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 11:30:33 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > But were there many persons and many events, each one mythically > embellished, and merged into one? > > Brent > Not all, some. AG > > On 12/26/2017 9:38 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Revisionist BS by Anne O'Reilly? You

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

Since galaxies were formed after the CMB came into existence about 380,000 years after the BB, and those far away will wink out as they cross the cosmic horizon, why doesn't the CMB also wink out? I know the latter is reddening as the cosmos expands, and is ubiquitous, but when the question was

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 8:57:46 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > Even as the universe expands there will still be a part of it which was > close enough to us (in the distant past) that it is still within our > visible universe. > > Brent > CMIIAW, but our galaxy formed a long time AFTER the

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 3:43:05 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The CMB is composed of radiation with a black body distribution peaked at > around 1000nm. The radiation is now in the microwave band at about 1 mm > wavelength. The IR photons were spread by the expansion of space

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 6:37:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/27/2017 5:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 3:43:05 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> The CMB is composed of radiation with a black body distribution peaked at >>

Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qflfM4DITeU -- 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+unsub

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 6:59:22 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}cm^{-2} and the scale factor > evolves as > > a(t) = a_0 exp(t sqrt{Λc^2/3}). > > The factor sqrt{Λc^2/3} ~ 10^{-18}sec^{-1}. For a billion years this is t > ~ 3x10^{16} sec a

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 7:45:41 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 6:59:22 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}cm^{-2} and the scale factor >> evolves as >> >> a(t) = a_0 exp(t sqrt{Λc^2/3}). >> >> Th

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 1:03:58 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 8:45:41 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 6:59:22 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> The cosmological constant is Λ ~ 10^{-52}cm

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 2:28:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 1:03:58 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 8:4

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

TL; DW? Read the Wiki link. Fermi found it contradictory that with so many presumed intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, we have received no visitations. But we have! Why do you have trouble connecting simple dots? AG On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:08:28 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: >

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 04:39:08PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > TL; DW? > > Read the Wiki link. Fermi found it contradictory that with so many > presumed > > intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, we

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:11:17 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > The fact these people were assigned to intelligence indicates something. > This was a balloon crash. The balloon though carried a payload that was > highly classified. It contained detectors and instruments that might

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 05:07:54PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > If 15 minutes exceeds your attention span, maybe you should retire from > > your quest for knowledge. AG > > 15 minutes of undirected

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:25:53 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 8:33:17 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 2:2

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 05:07:54PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > If 15 minutes exceeds your attention span, maybe you should retire from > > your quest for knowledge. AG > > 15 minutes of undirected

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > It was a test to loft equipment up into the atmosphere to conduct INTEL on > Russia. It was not an alien spacecraft. Please get real. > > LC > We have a difference of opinion. I find the witnesses completely credible.

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:19:38 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/31/2017 5:07 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 04:39:08PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > TL; DW? >>

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 10:02:22 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:19:38 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/31/2017 5:07 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote:

Another local hidden variable theory?

Two entangled electrons interact via EM processes as they separate while time-like separated. Couldn't they communicate at this time, setting their spins appropriately, oppositely? (I don't think so they can't know in which direction spin will be measured.) Is this another local hidden variable

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 1:14:35 AM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the > > incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the vi

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:04:37 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>> Most of what you write is above my pay grade. I am asking whether the EM >> or other environmental interactions between two entangled p

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/1/2018 6:36 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 1:14:35 AM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > In fact, pr

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> What the hell does this have to do with the Fermi paradox? >> > > ​That is a excellent question! I don't need the Everything List to read > abou

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 11:13:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> What the hell does this have to do with the Fermi paradox? >> > > ​That is a excellent question! > Obvious to a thinking person. AG > I don

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:46:07 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > Lying is not the only explanation for these witness statements. What > these witnesses saw may well have explanations other than ET. One of > my favourites, though obviously rather implausible, is that they are > time

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> I know a good deal about physics and a good deal about people'

Re: Another local hidden variable theory?

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 12:27:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Two entangled electrons interact via EM processes as they separate while >> time-like separated. Couldn't they communicate at this time

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:48:54 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/1/2018 4:16 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 05:07:54PM -0800, agr

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:28:18 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:54:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 2, 20

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, > wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >> >> >>> ​>> ​ >>> **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFIC/CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THERE >>> IS. >>> >

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 10:33:04 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> We may in fact be little more than a vast almost infinitely improbable >> fluke . >> > > ​There is a

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > That program has been revealed to be the child of Harry Reid, Senator from >> Nevada. At the request of Bigelow, who is advancing the idea of big >> inflated habitable mo

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:02:25 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:33:04 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> ​> ​ >>> We may in fact be little more than

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 4:45:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 10:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, > wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >> >> >>> ​>> ​ >>> **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFI

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 6:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> That program has been revealed to be

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 5:20:32 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:06:05 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:02:25 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:33:04 A

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:11:28 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:26:33 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> Insofar as you proceed from ignorance by refusing to view a short video, >> you have the mistaken impression that those witnesses

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​in their work real AI scientists don't use personal pronouns with no >>> clear referent, ​nor silly homemade terminology. >> >> >> ​> ​ >> See my papers f

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 2:16:56 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:19 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >>> You >>> seem to believe in a primary >>> ​mathematical​ >>> universe >>> ​, ​but matter by itself can do mathematics however mathematics by >>> itself can't do matter. >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:29:44 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 6/01/2018 4:59 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/5/2018 9:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 6/01/2018 4:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > Other things seem possible, such as the > extraordinary unlikelihood that all animals c

Re: Do we live in a multiverse?

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 2:55:23 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > It is similar to what Kepler thought at one time. He worked out a > complicated idea of sphere circumscribed in Platonic solids as some way of > understanding the Copernican heliocentric world. He later came up with >

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:49:20 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/3/2018 6:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:02:32 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 7:49 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/3/2018 6:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 a

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 2:44:05 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:16:29PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:02:32 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > When I was a Branch Head there was a sign on the wall above my

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:03:11 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:52:00PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Can't you appreciate the humor? AG > > No - it came across as obtuse. If it was meant to be humour, it backfired. > Be honest. Even if

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 8:04:42 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > How is it distinguished from red and possibly blue shifting due to > relative motion of distant galaxies? TIA, AG > I noticed, IIRC, that the Hubble constant as measured by the Planck probe, is around 67 km/sec/mps

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 1:31:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 8:04:42 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> How is it distinguished from red and possibly blue shifting due to >> relative motion of distant galaxies? TIA, AG >> > > I noti

Massive ‘anomaly’ lurks beneath ice in Antarctica

https://nypost.com/2016/12/29/massive-anomaly-lurks-beneath-ice-in-antarctica/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_2156394 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop rec

Re: Massive ‘anomaly’ lurks beneath ice in Antarctica

On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 9:44:48 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > https://nypost.com/2016/12/29/massive-anomaly-lurks-beneath-ice-in-antarctica/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_2156394 > Most likely an asteroid that caused the Permian extinction event

Re: Massive ‘anomaly’ lurks beneath ice in Antarctica

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:46:16 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:16 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Most likely an asteroid that caused the Permian extinction event. AG >> > > ​ > No, > ​ > the eruption of the volcanic Siberian Traps > ​ > most likely caused the > ​ > P

Gravity waves

What exactly is waving? Space-time? What is that? TIA, AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To pos

Re: Gravity waves

For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves of light show offsets due to different path lengths. So this seems to be a differential distortion of *space *as the wave passes. So what has *time* got to do with the phenomenon? AG On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:13:37

Re: Gravity waves

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:33:51 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, wrote: >> >> For me, the problem is space vs spacetime. In LIGO, the recombined waves >>> of light show

Inside Black Holes

Extremely hot and bright due to trapped radiation? AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to

Re: Gravity waves

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:03:07 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 10:33:29 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:33:51 PM UT

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >