subject:"Precision"

Re: Precision

2019-05-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 20 May 2019, at 01:15, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:37:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi > wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > ‘I believe there are 
>>> > 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>> >  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>>> > 
>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
>>> > Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
>>> > Physical Universe. 
>>> 
>>> Lol. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>>> number.
>>> 
>>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
>>> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>> 
>> 
>> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
>> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
>> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
>> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
>> persistent histories decorum.
>> 
>> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
>> region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
>> sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
>> experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
>> and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
>> electron's quantum numbers.
>> 
>> LC
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> LC
>>>  
>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
>>> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>> 
>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>> 
>>> Bruno 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron 
>> as a particle.
>> 
>> That is just a quasi-theological view in the catechism some physicists.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> Thank you all for the precisions. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> What I say is the way quantum mechanics really works, and is backed by loads 
> of experimental data.


I agree on this as seen as a phenomenology. I mean, yes, that is quantum 
mechanics.

Nevertheless, with digital mechanism, quantum mechanics (if correct) must be 
derived from elementary arithmetic, or equivalently from a combinatory algebra. 
Physics is given by a statistics on first person view based on all 
computations, which are executed in arithmetic (as we know since Gödel 1931 + 
Turing 1936). 

The theory of everything can be chosen to be just Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz), 
and a few identify rules. I cannot use physics without risking to cheat. 
Physics has to be derived from machine’s theology, which must be derived from 
those two axioms (with CT + YD at the meta-level, if only to motivate the 
definition, but here Neoplatonist theology can help, like the though 
experiments should help too.

Bruno




> 
> 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/b97a9bc0-944b-46e3-aa46-9f107f375063%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/D74189A8-F4F6-4FD3-811A-30906BB9D9C8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Precision

2019-05-19 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:37:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
 > 
 > ‘I believe there are 
 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
  
 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
 > 
 > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
 Chapter 
 XI, The Physical Universe. 

 Lol. 


>>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>>> number.
>>>
>>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and 
>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
>>> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
>>> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
>>> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
>>> persistent histories decorum.
>>>
>>> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
>> region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
>> sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
>> experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
>> and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
>> electron's quantum numbers.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LC
>>>  
>>>
 I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
 since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 

 Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 

 Bruno 




 > 


>
>
> Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron 
> as a particle.
>
> That is just a quasi-theological view in the catechism some physicists.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
> Thank you all for the precisions. 
>

> Bruno
>

What I say is the way quantum mechanics really works, and is backed by 
loads of experimental data.

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/b97a9bc0-944b-46e3-aa46-9f107f375063%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-19 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi > wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ‘I believe there are 
>> > 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>> >  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>> > 
>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
>> > Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
>> > Physical Universe. 
>> 
>> Lol. 
>> 
>> 
>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>> number.
>> 
>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
>> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
> 
> 
> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical object, 
> it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to make 
> the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
> persistent histories decorum.
> 
> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local region 
> with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one sense 
> there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are experiments 
> where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place and the charge 
> somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the electron's quantum 
> numbers.
> 
> LC
>  
> 
> 
>> 
>> LC
>>  
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
>> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>> 
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron as 
> a particle.
> 
> That is just a quasi-theological view in the catechism some physicists.
> 
> @philipthrift


Thank you all for the precisions.

Bruno



> 
>  
>> 
>> -
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/0fd3d0ae-dfb9-429e-a4e7-fea266ab25fe%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/44688959-0509-4919-83BF-57A717E8B300%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Precision

2019-05-17 Thread Philip Thrift


On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > ‘I believe there are 
>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>  
>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>>> > 
>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>>
>>> Lol. 
>>>
>>>
>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>> number.
>>
>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and 
>> time.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
>> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
>> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
>> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
>> persistent histories decorum.
>>
>> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
> region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
> sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
> experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
> and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
> electron's quantum numbers.
>
> LC
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>>
>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 
>>>
>>>


Prior to a measurement in one sense there is no such thing as the electron 
as a particle.

That is just a quasi-theological view in the catechism some physicists.

@philipthrift

 

>
>> -
>>
>>

-- 
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/0fd3d0ae-dfb9-429e-a4e7-fea266ab25fe%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ‘I believe there are 
>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>  
>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>> > 
>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>
>> Lol. 
>>
>>
> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
> number.
>
> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
>
>
> That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical 
> object, it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical 
> transformation. The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to 
> make the atoms dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and 
> persistent histories decorum.
>
> I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
An electron is the occurrence of some quantum numbers in a small local 
region with the occurrence of a measurement. Prior to a measurement in one 
sense there is no such thing as the electron as a particle. There are 
experiments where the spin of an electron can manifest itself in one place 
and the charge somewhere else. Certain interferometers can separate the 
electron's quantum numbers.

LC
 

>
>
>
> LC
>  
>
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
>>  
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%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/da2c3c46-9542-40d8-a384-dd08a40f1ce4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Eddington wrote a book "Fundamental Theory" which was apparently never
quite finished. I only know of it because there's a book I have by
Higman "Applied Group Theoretic and Matrix Methods" that devotes the
last chapter to a review of Eddington's "Quantum Relativity" in which he
says he gives a shortened version of Eddington's argument. It's 41
pages long. Higman's book is out of print, but cheap used copies are
available.

Brent

On 5/16/2019 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of
particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.

Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea
where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a
coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that
exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno

To show it more vividly, he has written this result in full.

Evgenii

Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal:

On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

‘I believe there are
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’

Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The
Physical Universe.

Lol.
I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since
1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)
Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?
Bruno

--
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/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


Am 16.05.2019 um 19:05 schrieb Bruno Marchal:



On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of 
particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.


Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea 
where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a 
coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that 
exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno


I have not read the Eddington book so I cannot explain on how he came to 
this result. Basically he thought that mind somehow is related to the 
Universe and God. Some kind of mystics.


My source of information is

Helge Kragh, Higher Speculations, Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions 
in Physics and Cosmology, 2011. Chapter 4, Rational Cosmologies.



Evgenii

--
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/df37a179-f8cb-a649-506f-7fed1bdb7cdf%40rudnyi.ru.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> 
> This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of 
> particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. 

Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea 
where this estimation comes from, and why it would be exact?

This assumes a lot of thing about the universe, when we still don’t have a 
coherent descriptive theory, nor unanimity of what that could, and if that 
exists.

Then how to verify this?

Bruno



> To show it more vividly, he has written this result in full.
> 
> Evgenii
> 
> Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>>> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> ‘I believe there are 
>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>>> 
>>> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
>>> Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
>>> Physical Universe.
>> Lol.
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
>> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?
>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
> 
> -- 
> 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/39a59c3a-e560-1967-7571-5d44741183f9%40rudnyi.ru.

-- 
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/4474728D-2086-40BE-ADBC-6289FB52607F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi > 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > ‘I believe there are 
> > 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
> >  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
> > 
> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
> > Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
> > Physical Universe. 
> 
> Lol. 
> 
> 
> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
> number.
> 
> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.


That is quite reasonable, but I am not sure an electron is a physical object, 
it is a locally observable invariant in some group theoretical transformation. 
The “electron” is a useful fiction, to send waves, or to make the atoms 
dialoguing into molecules and bigger strangely stable and persistent histories 
decorum.

I al still curious why that number. I don’t have that book by Eddington.

Bruno




> 
> LC
>  
> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
> 
> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru
> >  
> > .
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%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/E4567ED4-1B0E-49A6-B3A2-5F6A3AD405E1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/16/2019 4:48 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno
Marchal wrote:

> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are

15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of
electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of
Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI,
The Physical Universe.

Lol.

The number is curiously not that different from the
currently understood number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the
universe. All these electrons we see are just the same
electron weaving through space and time.

I guess this concerns the observable universe,
which has grown a lot since 1939. (Cf Hubble and
“Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the
apparent joke?

Bruno

The number of electrons and protons stays the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle
and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples
include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an
antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair production
often refers specifically to a photon creating an
electron–positron pair near a nucleus.

In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold
target was used to generate positron–electron pairs in
large numbers.

That "there is only one electron in the universe. All
these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving
through space and time" would explain telepathy and
precognition.

@philipthrift

I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin
Visan showed up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the
reports of moon landings are no more credible than claims of
the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. There is no
scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various
tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has
ever been found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.

But, in order:

1. Precognition.
2. Telepathy.
3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.
4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons
we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've
ever seen).
3 is crazy.
But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea
can't really say the others are "crazy", can they?

@philipthrift

Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and
time to create this multifold appearance this electron crosses
horizons. That means information other than quantum numbers for
electrons, spin, charge, isospin and mass, does not traverse all of
space and time. This means that while the electrons in my body or
brain may be really manifestations of the same electron defining those
in other brains that reading thoughts is not possible this way. Think
about it, if this is right then this one electron manifests itself
with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any sense that we
might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron pressure
in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous.

The problem with #4 is there are not equal numbers of electrons and
positrons. But there are some positrons. There aren't any of #1 and #2.

Brent

Re: Precision

2019-05-16 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
> > 
> > ‘I believe there are 
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>  
> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
> > 
> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
> Chapter 
> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>
> Lol. 
>
>
 The number is curiously not that different from the currently 
 understood number.

 To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
 these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space 
 and 
 time.

 LC
  

> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>
> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> \


>>>
>>> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>>>
>>> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
>>> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
>>> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
>>> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
>>> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 
>>>
>>> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was 
>>> used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.
>>>
>>>  
>>> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons 
>>> we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
>>> explain telepathy and precognition.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed 
>> up hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no 
>> more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. 
>> There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various 
>> tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been 
>> found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> But, in order:
>
> 1. Precognition.
> 2. Telepathy.
> 3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.
> 4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see 
> are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
> The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've ever seen). 
> 3 is crazy.
> But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea can't 
> really say the others are "crazy", can they?
>
> @philipthrift
>

Well ... if there is only one electron that weaves across space and time to 
create this multifold appearance this electron crosses horizons. That means 
information other than quantum numbers for electrons, spin, charge, isospin 
and mass, does not traverse all of space and time. This means that while 
the electrons in my body or brain may be really manifestations of the same 
electron defining those in other brains that reading thoughts is not 
possible this way. Think about it, if this is right then this one electron 
manifests itself with electrons in white dwarf stars. So does it make any 
sense that we might have some psychic connection to the degenerate electron 
pressure in white dwarf stars? Of course not, the idea is preposterous.

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/076704e5-abd2-4381-a5ca-f183032f282f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Philip Thrift



On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
 > 
 > ‘I believe there are 
 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
  
 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
 > 
 > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
 Chapter 
 XI, The Physical Universe. 

 Lol. 


>>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>>> number.
>>>
>>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and 
>>> time.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>  
>>>
 I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
 since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 

 Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 

 Bruno 



 \
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>>
>> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
>> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
>> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
>> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
>> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 
>>
>> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was 
>> used to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.
>>
>>  
>> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we 
>> see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
>> explain telepathy and precognition.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed up 
> hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no 
> more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. 
> There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various 
> tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been 
> found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.
>
> LC
>


But, in order:

1. Precognition.
2. Telepathy.
3. The moon landing in July, 1969 was faked.
4. There is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we see 
are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

The tests claimed to support 1 and 2 are bogus (as far as I've ever seen). 
3 is crazy.
But 4 is in its own world of bizarre beliefs. One with that idea can't 
really say the others are "crazy", can they?

@philipthrift

-- 
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/d045438d-4172-4e3b-88e6-218bbf107978%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > ‘I believe there are 
>>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>>  
>>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>>> > 
>>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>>
>>> Lol. 
>>>
>>>
>> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
>> number.
>>
>> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All 
>> these electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and 
>> time.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>>
>>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> \
>>
>>
>
> The number of electrons and protons stays the same?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>
> Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
> antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
> and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
> production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
> electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 
>
> In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used 
> to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.
>
>  
> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we 
> see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
> explain telepathy and precognition.
>
> @philipthrift
>

I have not been entirely happy with this list since Cosmin Visan showed up 
hustling his nonsense. Now he claims the reports of moon landings are no 
more credible than claims of the paranormal. I wish this crap would end. 
There is no scientific basis for this rubbish, it has been put to various 
tests since the late 19th century and nothing whatsoever has ever been 
found. Please, don't join this chorus of morons.

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/14d39a23-10c4-4888-a389-0e5f210b1d6d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Philip Thrift



On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/14/2019 10:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we 
> see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
> explain telepathy and precognition.
>
>
> Only the way "God did it." explains the miracles at Lourdes.
>
> Brent
>

 

If there is only *one* electron, what are you doing with *my* electron?

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/6cf3e5e4-328b-4c5e-b2f3-214936e47e1a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/14/2019 10:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons 
we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" 
would explain telepathy and precognition.


Only the way "God did it." explains the miracles at Lourdes.

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/b701a41c-febb-620b-67a0-9d3210197d3b%40verizon.net.

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi

Am 15.05.2019 um 07:59 schrieb Philip Thrift:

...

On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

‘I believe there are

15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’

Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter
XI, The Physical Universe.

The number of electrons and protons stays the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Eddington has written it at times where the number of known particles
has been quite limited.

Evgenii

Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its
antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron
and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair
production often refers specifically to a photon creating an
electron–positron pair near a nucleus.

In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used
to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.

That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we

see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would
explain telepathy and precognition.

@philipthrift

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number
of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. To show it more vividly, he has
written this result in full.

Evgenii

Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal:

On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

‘I believe there are
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’

Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The
Physical Universe.

Lol.

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since
1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno

Re: Precision

2019-05-15 Thread Philip Thrift

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ‘I believe there are 
>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>>  
>> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
>> > 
>> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
>> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>>
>> Lol. 
>>
>>
> The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
> number.
>
> To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
> electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.
>
> LC
>  
>
>> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot 
>> since 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>>
>> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>>
>>
>> \
>
>

The number of electrons and protons stays the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its 
antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron 
and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair 
production often refers specifically to a photon creating an 
electron–positron pair near a nucleus. 

In 2008 the Titan laser aimed at a 1-millimeter-thick gold target was used 
to generate positron–electron pairs in large numbers.

That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we 
see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would 
explain telepathy and precognition.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/faea4aed-e509-42d8-9a12-c6e20f580532%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-14 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > ‘I believe there are 
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>  
> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ 
> > 
> > Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter 
> XI, The Physical Universe. 
>
> Lol. 
>
>
The number is curiously not that different from the currently understood 
number.

To be honest I think there is only one electron in the universe. All these 
electrons we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time.

LC
 

> I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
> 1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble) 
>
> Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke? 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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/eae6b0b3-4255-4262-8f1b-08cf26418660%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Precision

2019-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> 
> ‘I believe there are 
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>  protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
> 
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: 
> Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the Chapter XI, The 
> Physical Universe.

Lol.

I guess this concerns the observable universe, which has grown a lot since 
1939. (Cf Hubble and “Hubble)

Any idea of why that particular number? Beyond the apparent joke?

Bruno




> 
> -- 
> 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/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.

-- 
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/5C1321EA-B461-4657-B909-C1F14FF11CC5%40ulb.ac.be.

Precision

2019-05-12 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi

‘I believe there are 
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’


Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 170. The beginning of the 
Chapter XI, The Physical Universe.


--
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/2158abf8-82c9-8b49-eeb1-43415021244d%40rudnyi.ru.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

2015-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 28 Jan 2015, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Jan 28, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite  
precision would entail the falsity of computationalism.


Yes, and if the theory was correct it would also prove that the Real  
Numbers are really real.



Ah Really real does mean for you primary physical.

So you do assume, in your theory a primary physical universe. In some  
post you seemed open that this might not be the case.


Bruno







  John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

2015-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 28 Jan 2015, at 10:55, LizR wrote:

I must admit I am a little suspicious of a theory that requires  
nature to exhibit infinite precision.



Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite  
precision would entail the falsity of computationalism.
The apparent existence of evolution is a strong evidence in favor of  
computationalism, alias digital mechanism. The precisions added by  
molecular genetics gave even more evidences.
We might say that the evolution of life is an evidence that nature  
exploits computationalism since the start.
Of course it is not a proof (in which theory?) that computationalism  
is true.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

2015-01-28 Thread LizR

I must admit I am a little suspicious of a theory that requires nature to
exhibit infinite precision.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

2015-01-28 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite
 precision would entail the falsity of computationalism.


Yes, and if the theory was correct it would also prove that the Real
Numbers are really real.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

2015-01-22 Thread John Ross

Tronnies may explain the need for π’s precission.

 

Coulomb’s Law requires that all charged particles be point particles or made 
from point particles.  Tronnies are point particles with a charge of plus e or 
minus e.  Their charge of e means the tronnies are the source of the Coulomb 
force which travels at the speed of light.  Everything in our Universe is made 
from tronnies or things made from tronnies.

 

In order to exist tronnies must travel in perfect circles at a speed of π/2 
times the speed of light.  In doing so each tronnie is always at a point focus 
of its own Coulomb forces which travel across the tronnie’s circle at the speed 
of light.  If the circles were not perfect or if π were not exactly what it is, 
then the tronnie could not be a point and our Universe may not exist. 

 

Two tronnies make an entron.   Entrons have diameters which range from 0.9339 X 
10-18 m to a few centimeters and provide all of the mass and energy of our 
Universe except for the mass and energy of electrons and positrons.  Electrons 
and positrons are each made from three tronnies.  Each of the three tronnies 
circle with a diameter of a precise diameter which is about 0.9339 X 10-18 m.

 

Tronnies are described in my book, Tronnies – The Source of the Coulomb Force 
available at Amason.com.

 

John Ross

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 5:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

On 18 January 2015 at 18:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

  Do you believe that one and only one of the following statements is true?
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 0
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 1
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 2
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 3
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 4
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 5
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 6
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 7
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 8
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi is 9
Either you answer yes, or no to that question. If you answer yes, I don't see 
how you can escape mathematical realism.

 

Seth Lloyd  has estimated that the maximum number of computations that could be 
performed in the visible universe is about 10^121 operations on 10^90 bits,  if 
this is insufficient to find your number is it meaningful to say pi has a 
10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit? I don't know, it depend on if mathematics 
gave rise to physics or physics gave rise to mathematics. 

 

 John K Clark

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Re: Precision

Precision

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.

26 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information