On Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:35:49 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different
clock times.
,
There are major distinctions between
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a
rather rambling post on epistemology?
I don't see it as epistemology save in the most literal sense of the word
with no baggage allowed
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:53:06 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to
a rather rambling post on epistemology?
I don't see
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:13:29 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY
is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference.
The fact
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:21:41 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that being at the same point in spacetime is CALLED the present
moment that I'm talking about.
But your present moment goes
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
of a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots
around that
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
of a world, and if the speed
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:12:18 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014
On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:59:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/16/2014 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The body does not produces consciousness, it only make it possible for
consciousness to
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:44:08 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe comes to exist and if it comes into
existence all at once, or a bit at a time (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it
was. But I haven't
On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:11:18 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 11:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a
great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better
idea.
Good, that was
On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:29:11 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
the edge of
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:39:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/3/2014 8:29 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Liz - I was just thinking. If Newton's world predicted a variant of
blocktime. What is
that saying, given Newton's world wasn't correct? Or was it based some
aspect that
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 22:40, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:59:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On
hi Bruno - perhaps ignore this line in my second response. Well look, all
you had to do to see the point above was the usual read, read what I was
replying to, and figure. There is only one reference to you in Brent's
comment.
It's referring to the first response. I don't know how it ended up
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:34:51 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar
*Eric Lerner*
*Big Bang Never Happened*
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:33:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
1. In my view real science means only the equations that actually work to
predict events and the logical framework in which those equations are
meaningfully applied. In a more restrictive sense real science is only the
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy,
I think that's reasonable but...
but the topics treated are what nearly everyone else considers to be
science.
Yeah I agree with this. I
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:29:59 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy,
I think that's reasonable but...
but the topics treated are what
negative. I'm not a philosopher. I wasn't mentioning
philosophical concerns.
No problem ghibbsa. And of course I do like philosophy, but not when
misused notably with respect to validity of a reasoning.
I have stopped a long time ago to do philosophy on this list, to avoid an
easy
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:31:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/3/2014 9:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
So do you think block time is what is inferred as a reality by each of
these space and time variants?
You mean implied by? It doesn't imply anything about which is
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:04:49 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would
block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while
their time is being
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:45:18 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:49:57PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I did wonder once if, since the holographic principle implies that the
information in a universe is proportional to the surface area of the
Hubble
sphere,
I was wondering how many different contexts of superposition there might
be. For example one vaguely know about is the superposition associated with
the double slit experiment, of particles going through one, the other, both
and neither slit. Another is the superposition of possible states of a
Max Tegmark of all people rejects infinity and argues we need to get back
to elegant theories with finite equations and stop playing the infinite
infinity game
That said, some of his suggestions seem dubious if I read it right. You
can't just redefine the troublesome infinities. Doing that
The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as the planet Neptune and
the radio wave: with mathematics. Why does our universe seem so
mathematical, and what does it mean? In my new book, Our Mathematical
Universe, which comes out today, I argue that it means that our universe
isn't just
proposal:
1)Instead of asking what is fundamental about math, we can consider the
case of math in physics and ask what is fundamental among the subset of
mathematical objects' directly in play in the equations and operations
describing physics .
2)If ONE of these objects can be isolated
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:18:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for the warm and friendly tone of your posts! That's rather the
exception here and you set a high standard and a great example for other
posters.
I think you've been treated really well
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:53:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
A couple of points in response:
1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d
universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows
just fine in SR and GR. No clock
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:49:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Hmmm, guess I was a little over optimistic in my praise! I'll retract it
if you like. Your previous post must have been a temporary aberration!
:-)
Best,
Edgar
what you were actually doing was making
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 4:31:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to
be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations.
Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:50:50 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 4:31:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only
to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only
to be met not with appreciation but with snide
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:35:07 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
2 Maxes? Hmm. Can't be bad. Maybe he has an evil twin!
(or maybe this is an unexpected result of that quantum suicide experiment
he talked about a few years back...)
I actually emailed him for clarification where he stood. No
On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth,
which - I thought - had to
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:36:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult
questions,
Take this example:
Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead.
By definition there is NO relative motion
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very
present moment. That's a key insight to the theory.
The fact that we can't determine exactly what the clock time is there of
that present
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:55:02 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very
present moment. That's a key insight to the theory.
The fact that we
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space
background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of
the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:37:17 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
distortion representing the sun and a
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge
:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only
to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations.
Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error...
Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to
choose one frame over the other to get the correct results.
Edgar
I see what you are asking, or think so. But unfortunately it goes
beyond
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:43:37 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though
it
doesn't
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time runs
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:34:25 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 February 2014 17:16, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big
bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately
nodding at dark energy)
Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe
though it
doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior
Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the
history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of
a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0
of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment?
Look, I
AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time runs
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it
doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal
with the problems
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with
it doesn't change in principle either.
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:57:44 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa.
Edgar
I wusn't messin' with your idea man promise! I was just ranting away full
of good intentions but basically a bit sick in the head.
On Saturday
:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary,
only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks
9:06:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to
choose one frame over the other to get the correct results
RELATIVITY THEORY
I love it...I'm being reeled in by it. A lot of people here have said
really weird and wonderful things. A couple of things have been talked
about as if fundamental, that I'm betting is not fundamental. A lot of
other questions have been coming up for melike is
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:44:09 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 07:18:06AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic
processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it
manifests
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:21:32 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 9 February 2014 14:31, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Nothing phazes Edgar lol.
Edgar is like our very own Saga Norén.
I was getting these spasms of hilarity earlier on. Not very funny thoughts
by normal standards. I
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:35:01 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
http://www.endecocide.eu/
I support the idea, but I don't feel like I can trust organizations like
that anymore. Often enough their just a money shakedown. Or they
have really nasty agenda against his people or someone else's. Or
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:19:52 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I've looked at the site and I still can't see who you mean by he -
please explain.
oh vally good!
I agree with you that we need to transform the world economy, however I
can't see that it is happening,
Whatever hero (sorry
Not stating this as 'theoy', though feel free to batter it, but more you
know when sometimes you have a deep insight, and in that moment a lot of
things come together and perhaps you see that they are all the same or
whatever. A lot of the time - at least for others I mean not on this list -
On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:10:02 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Not stating this as 'theoy', though feel free to batter it, but more you
know when sometimes you have a deep insight, and in that moment a lot of
things come together and perhaps you see that they are all the same or
On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:23:27 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
In the meantime, can I have some of whatever you're on?
I'm just a junkie love, Edgar's the dealer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:07:07 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce
On Friday, February 14, 2014 7:47:27 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Some members of the list have expressed fondness or interest for
cuttlefish, which is
why I post this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgdVVU8tBTQ
The
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:50:19 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
Would this have happeed if Japan had been using subcritical reactors
with thorium fuel?
It's worth asking. I don't know the answer but if half the promise were
half true for Thorium it'd be pretty hard to accept the risk
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:33:19 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I tend to agree, if nuclear reactors are just built to the high safety
standards they need to be. Quite obviously they should be built to
automatically shut down safely, rather than having melt downs
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:44:58 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:28:09PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen
edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:16:19 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/15/2014 2:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I find
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:40:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
OK, I'm back...
Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
simultaneous in p-time
The only clocks in this
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:07:07 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:38 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:18:32PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:30:23PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But there is a weaker form. However unlikely one
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:31:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa and Russell,
There can be absolutely no doubt of an external reality independent of
humans. As I said, all of common sense, and all of science makes this
fundamental assumption.
We have eyes, and other sense
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:45:19 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of
*ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
*To:*
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:00:25 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:54, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:37:46 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Here's one more theory from my book on Reality:
All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative motion.
They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for there to be
mass-energy
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:37:46 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Here's one more theory from my book on Reality:
All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative motion.
They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for there to be
mass-energy
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:07:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net
javascript:wrote:
On
I was just trying to imagine the effect two equal oceans, one on each
objechave? The ocean puts a heavy brake on the rotation of Earth and has
already tidally locked the moon. But what tidal drag went both .ways? Would
the planets start moving toward eachother, or pull further away?
--
You
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:08:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well your reply seems ambiguous. You seem to be saying that you agree with
me but that we are both wrong! Could you perhaps clarify that?
Edgaa
the small talk was tongue in cheek hopefully obviously. I think
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:08:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well your reply seems ambiguous. You seem to be saying that you agree with
me but that we are both wrong! Could you perhaps clarify that?
Edgar
Sorry about that dear chap. I guess I was saying there was some
sorry for any confusion. I thought I lost this one before posting. So I've
said another response. Ignore this, cos stops midsentence somewhere
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:29:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:08:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:39:50 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
They would pull further away, I believe. Tidal drag slows the rotation of
the bodies (for example by pulling the ocean out into an ovoid in this
case) and conservation of angular momentum requires that their orbits widen
as a
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:35:33 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:39:50 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
They would pull further away, I believe. Tidal drag slows the rotation of
the bodies (for example by pulling the ocean out into an ovoid in this
case) and
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:45:36 AM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:27, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
John Searle in one of his papers proposes that if our brain were being
gradually replaced we would find ourselves losing qualia while
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:12:05 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks
nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise
are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:56:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi ghibbsa,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:19, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruno,
You've said somewhere in this thread that by logic comp
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:05:17 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 11:27, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Yo David, You said somewhere you had a thought for how consciousness might
be. I'm into that one at the moment so I'd be interested to hear anything
you have to
1 - 100 of 430 matches
Mail list logo
