the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Roger,
On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.
But then why separate them? Why not allowing
that.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Roger,
On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.
But then why
Hi Bruno Marchal
Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal and all
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:41, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
WHAT 'evidences'???
I don't see what you are talking about. The word evidences does not
appear in the quote.
we have no way to judge them.
We can bet on relations between them.
We either accept the (belief-based) figment as
Hi Bruno Marchal and all--
Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re
On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:59:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM
content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:
Richard:
and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our
Bruno:
WHAT 'evidences'??? we have no way to judge them. We either *accept* the
(belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE, *or not*.
The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our belief
(even system) on such.
John (M)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal
on and on.
So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 08:39:30
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-22, 08:39:30
*Subject:* Re: Is there an aether
On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my
position. I have
never once said that existence is contingent upon human
consciousness. I
state again
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:
Richard:
and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if
it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig
Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
*Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, January
: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
That is such a silly pov.
Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about
so you keep pointing
On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.
Hi Roger,
This is a good
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
have
Richard:
and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is
like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be
more accurate) and then
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Craig,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole worldview is built
personally...to your
cells and organs, that's another matter.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
*Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM
Hi Craig,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is
possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you
fail to factor that critically important physical reality into
-
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
*Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Craig,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats
Empty Space is not Empty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational
aether. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and
the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism.
Particles can
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote:
Empty Space is not Empty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether.
No. There's no gravitational aether.
The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible
for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to
factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you
get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric
On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity.
No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a
experimental result
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote:
So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity.
No, light has a fixed
On Friday, January 11, 2013 2:02:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt
as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the
receiver-transmitter relation.
That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory
On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible
range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the
EM is defined by the
On 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible
range is
felt as heat. This means that the entirety of
On Friday, January 11, 2013 5:45:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible
The problem, in my view, is the term physical.
*http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical*
1.* a. * Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or
spirit. See Synonyms at bodily http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bodily.
* b. * Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily
On 10 Jan 2013, at 14:10, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not.
That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein.
That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view
that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment,
38 matches
Mail list logo
