Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi John, On 23 Nov 2013, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote: Bruno wrote: ...Health should separate from the State, like the Church. I respectfully disagree. I appreciate :) Health care is a societal duty to be provided for those unfortunate who are not capable of covering their needs - like

Re: Atheism is wish fuklfillment.

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
You mean the belief that we can explain everything? I think Raymond Smullyan said something simliar. On 24 November 2013 02:04, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Atheism is wish fulfillment. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote: Atheism

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not making much

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread Samiya Illias
Bruno asks: Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread spudboy100
Science may never answer the WHY question, but it surely must answer the HOW question. Once we know how, we will likely know why? Right now our ability to understand the universe has been hampered by insufficient tools to observe and analyze what was. But we have become much better over the

Re: Geminoid replicator

2013-11-24 Thread spudboy100
Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)?? -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: undisclosed-recipients:; Sent: Sat, Nov 23,

Re: Geminoid replicator

2013-11-24 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)?? This is really cool, but I don't think that the GoL

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Nov 2013, at 14:35, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno asks: Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical reality? We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. That is not entirely clear to me. In a sense, I can agree, but this is because the natural numbers,

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread John Mikes
Liz: your precise version (with Bruno's rounding it up) makes me evoid to call myself an atheist: An 'atheist' requires god(s) to DENY. In my (rather agnostic) worldview there is no place (requirement) for supernatural (whatever that may be) 'forces' to control nature. I feel reluctant to draw

Re: Geminoid replicator

2013-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Nov 2013, at 17:02, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)?? Conway's game of life is (Turing) Universal, so it can

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread meekerdb
There are variations. Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist by his political opponents. And they were correct since he seems to have been a deist, not a theist. Do you think there is a difference between believing the God of Abraham does not exist and failing to believe that He does?

Re: Global warming silliness

2013-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic effects from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet. Hard to

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
If it was just the Christian God then believers in Odin and the Ancient Romans and Egyptians and so on would all be atheists which seems a bit silly! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread meekerdb
On 11/24/2013 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote: To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that theism is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them. Atheism is also the belief in NO

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments). We should not

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
On 25 November 2013 10:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by god before you can answer whether god exists or not. So what is the definition of physical reality?

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
So far left out of this discussion is that the physical reality that we observe and derive physical laws for may be only 5% of the universe, the other 95% being comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which are actually just placeholders for the unknown. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:53 PM,

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
That reminds me of turtles all the way down. To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb; and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And - PLEASE -

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or hereabouts. On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com

Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
It seems unlikely that the nature of dark matter and dark energy will change the ontological status of matter generally. A materialist, for example, will assume that they are more of the same -- but less interactive, at least with our 5%. On 25 November 2013 13:08, Richard Ruquist

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
I don't quite see what you're getting at here. On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may not stop in the other direction. For example to make a supernova you need fusion. Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not sure what comes after supernovas unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs On Sun, Nov

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them are capable of exploding. It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs. Not

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, [which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM,

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black hole. Surely

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
This looks like another article on the same theory. http://phys.org/news189792839.html#nRlv On 25 November 2013 14:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin and torsion while the mass stayed constant. On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though... The immensely high gravitational energy in this

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in the Bagavatum Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose. Poplawski theory says that the baby universe forms at the sametime as the black hole. I will be looking for developments of this theory where

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
OK. I'm just a bit sceptical of the writers now, because what they said in the bit I quoted didn't seem correct, so maybe they made other mistakes. But in any case it's an interesting theory. On 25 November 2013 15:29, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I think you are correct. However,

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread LizR
On 25 November 2013 15:46, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in the Bagavatum Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose. I'm sure they nicked that from Douglas Adams. Beware the great

RE: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Chris de Morsella
Stars are the visible manifestation of the meta-stable equilibrium between the explosive power of fusion and the compressive power of gravity. In the end gravity wins - for the most part (or percentage of mass that is) Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode. I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps. The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a per-volume

RE: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Chris de Morsella
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Nuclear power On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stars are

Re: Nuclear power

2013-11-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM *To:* Everything List *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power