Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying
this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc?
Ronald
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King
OK, time for THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION of how gravity can escape from a
black hole
Liz, Brent, and Richard,
OK, nobody got the answer so I'll explain it myself. It's pretty simple but
still pretty profound and thought provoking
Gravity IS what needs to be escaped. So it doesn't even
Stephen,
I think we need to back up and explore the root of this apparent
disagreement.
If I understand you you claim there are multiple computational realities
while I claim there is only one. Is that correct?
If so then please answer a few questions so I can understand your position
Edgar,
Electric fields also come out if the BH singularity has a charge.
Richard
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
OK, time for THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION of how gravity can escape from a
black hole
Liz, Brent, and Richard,
OK, nobody got the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/25/2014 5:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
We have to be careful to be precisely accurate here.
1. The structure of a black hole is
Jesse, Please excuse my simple-minded model:
Electric fields also come out if the BH singularity has a charge.
Richard
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
According to general relativity, neither gravity nor electric fields
actually come out of the black
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 09:33, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them. I
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No.
First you have a basic misunderstanding of relativistic time in your first
paragraph. External observers DO see objects fall through the event horizon
of a black hole with no problem at all. They don't get
Richard,
Well, electric charges can theoretically come out of a black hole, just NOT
the singularity in particular as you suggested. Nobody actually knows what
happens in the singularity itself, or at least there is no consensus. I
made one suggestion with reference to a bouncing universe and
Jesse,
No, you are just plain wrong here. It's simple relativity theory. Just
because observer A sees observer B's clock slow down does NOT mean observer
A sees observer B's MOTION slow down. In fact it is the increase in
velocity (or equivalently gravitation) that CAUSES his clock to slow in
PS: In my post below that should read electric FIELDS can come out of a
black hole, not electric CHARGES.
Pardon the typo!
Edgar
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Richard,
Well, electric charges can theoretically come out of a black hole, just
NOT the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them.
I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet use:
the word God refers to an intelligent conscious being who created the
universe.
Thanks Richard, quite interesting, though obviously the jury is still out...
Edgar
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:54:19 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Edgar,
Regarding Nobody actually knows what happens in the singularity itself,
Poplawski using Einstein equations with spin has determined what
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
PS: In my post below that should read electric FIELDS can come out of a
black hole, not electric CHARGES.
Pardon the typo!
Edgar
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:41:07 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Richard,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, you are just plain wrong here. It's simple relativity theory. Just
because observer A sees observer B's clock slow down does NOT mean observer
A sees observer B's MOTION slow down. In fact it is the increase
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
PS: It's not my theory, it's mainstream relativity theory. Any physicist
and probably some others here can set you straight
Edgar
If you think this is mainstream physics, then can you please answer the
Jesse,
Respectfully, I don't have time to argue what is well known. If you don't
believe me ask others here, or a physicist.
If what you claim was true everything that fell towards a black hole would
never enter it and would be perpetually stuck around the boundary. That
would include all the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is just
nuts and stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's
cutting edge scientific
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Respectfully, I don't have time to argue what is well known. If you don't
believe me ask others here, or a physicist.
You are being evasive--you want me to ask a physicist but don't have
time to tell me if you
Stephen,
To combine my responses to several of your posts...
I sort of agree with your notion of multiple realities but I would argue
these are not the fundamental reality and we must assume a more fundamental
reality with the same laws of nature, rules of logic, and fine tuning, etc.
that
Brent,
There is no confusion.
Sure, that's just the standard kiddy book diagram of a black hole with
which everyone agrees (except Jesse Mazur who thinks nothing actually
enters a black hole but instead piles up on the event horizon boundary -
see his posts). But that doesn't address the
On 1/26/2014 7:29 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Also note that this is just a quirk of how Schwarzchild coordinates are defined, you can
define other coordinate systems on the same curved spacetime that don't have this issue,
like Kruskal-Szekeres coordinate:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them.
I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet
use:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 21:24, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man ,
On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Tell me what you believe so we can be clear:
My understanding is that you believe that if the parts of the
On 25 Jan 2014, at 21:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz, Bruno and John,
Liz is spot on here. Almost all of the interminable arguments about
God are simply because different unstated definitions are being used.
God is a matter of definition not of empirical discovery.
You can't be sure of
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In your aristotelian theology. But when working on the mind-body
problem, it
On 27 January 2014 01:13, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying
this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc?
I would hope noone here is a believer in the PU, UDA etc! We just haven't
refuted
It's common knowledge - well, amongst people who are interested in this
sort of thing - that an outside observer sees an infalling object get stuck
just outside the event horizon of a black hole (and then fade away as it
redshifts towards infinity)
This was explained in a (relatively) recent
On 25 Jan 2014, at 18:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Once again a summary of my computational universe:
I did not ask you a summary of your theory. Just a definition of
computation, or of your computational space notion, as what I get is
until now seeming inconsistent.
The
On 25 Jan 2014, at 17:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/25/2014 3:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And even if they did, why would that cause me to say no to the
doctor.
By the UDA. If you say yes to the doctor, physics emerges from
all computations, and even plausibly from those who do not stop,
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:15, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 January 2014 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Maybe the difference in intuition is because she doesn't think
about it in Hoyle's universalist way, although ISTM this is
implicit in the heuristic (i.e. the guy is the unique
On 25 Jan 2014, at 20:53, LizR wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them. I imagine they're rather different.
I did. Very often. I did again in my preceding post to John Clark.
And John did it also. For John, like for many fundamentalist atheists,
On 25 Jan 2014, at 20:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man , and that is exactly
why using the word God is totally irresponsible if you're not
talking
Brent, Liz and Jesse,
OK, now I understand the effect you guys are referencing...
I thought Jesse had been saying that things don't ACTUALLY fall into black
holes, they just pile up on the event horizon surface, because their motion
actually slows down as they approach the surface BECAUSE
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:54, John Mikes wrote:
*Bruno*, let me use simple words (you seem to overcomplicate my
input).
*JM: What IS the 'mind' you PRESERVE?*
*BM:* My consciousness. - It means that I can surivive in the usal
clinical sense,
the brain
On 27 January 2014 00:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 20:53, LizR wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare them.
I imagine they're rather different.
I did. Very often. I did again in my preceding post to John Clark.
And John
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent, Liz and Jesse,
OK, now I understand the effect you guys are referencing...
I thought Jesse had been saying that things don't ACTUALLY fall into black
holes, they just pile up on the event horizon surface, because
Dear Folks,
I agree with John's most resent remark and his recommendation of the
books. Here is a nice review of Collapse of Chaos:
http://www.thenewhumanities.net/books/Book%20Reviews44.html
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:43 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:54,
Also see:
http://files.meetup.com/1819750/%2313%20-%20Ian%20Stewart%20-%20Figments%20of%20Reality.pdf
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Folks,
I agree with John's most resent remark and his recommendation of the
books. Here is a
All,
Unfortunately it seems the database for previous wiki page was somehow
deleted, but I have created a fresh version at:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Main_Page
I've also created a number of stub pages, which you can see at:
On 26 January 2014 23:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:15, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 January 2014 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Maybe the difference in intuition is because she doesn't think about it
in Hoyle's universalist way, although ISTM
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 23:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:15, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 January 2014 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Maybe the difference in intuition is
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In
Dear LizR,
You and Bruno have often complained that my postings lack rigor... For a
nice formal representation of Heraclitean streams click
That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have
the time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other
people's efforts.
We must make sure we have backups this time!
PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the
wiki back in 21st of July
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
PS: In my post below that should read electric FIELDS can come out of a
black hole, not electric CHARGES.
Pardon the typo!
Edgar
I don't think it's right to say fields come out of the black hole. In
classical
Stephen: thanks for your consent and the book review. I have the oher one.
John
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Folks,
I agree with John's most resent remark and his recommendation of the
books. Here is a nice review of Collapse
Dear John,
LOL your most welcome. :-) Those books where part of my
(on-going)education. It is great to see them mentioned.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen: thanks for your consent and the book review. I have the oher one.
John
On Sun, Jan 26,
Russell,
Yes, I also tried to salvage what was available from the web archive, but
unfortunate it looks like the archiver never found the wiki to begin with
so nothing was ever archived. I won't let that happen this time, I will
submit the new wiki address such that it gets properly archived
On 27 January 2014 11:20, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
'Because, like all of us in our daily lives, you're stuck with a
grotesque and absurd illusion.'
'How's that?'
'The idea of time as an ever-rolling stream. The thing which is supposed
to bear all its sons away.
On 27 January 2014 11:26, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
You and Bruno have often complained that my postings lack rigor... For a
nice formal representation of Heraclitean streams click
Dear LizR,
:
the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I
know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're the
victims of a confidence trick...
What other implication does Hoyle's phrasing have? His entire discussion
of the pigeon holes is to point
Dear LizR,
Keep going! Don't stop there, hear out the fellow's definition and think
about it.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 11:26, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
You and Bruno have often complained that
On 27 January 2014 12:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
:
the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I
know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're the
victims of a confidence trick...
What other implication
On 27 January 2014 12:49, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Keep going! Don't stop there, hear out the fellow's definition and think
about it.
It's far too complicated for my little brain. You must have noticed me
(slowly and painfully) working out the answers
Dear LizR,
Very good points that you make, but they are peripheral What I am
trying to draw attention is: How did the order and the relating come to
pass? (in the last sentence you wrote.)
Is is just sitting there, in eternity, and our consciousness somehow is a
reflection of this order
Dear LizR,
By that standard we would still be living in caves Sorry, knowledge
does not come cheaply. :_( It has taken me countless hours of reading to
get to where I am.. What is one to do, when trying to explain an idea that
is unconventional? I can't seem to just shut up...
On Sun,
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be responsible for
my or our existence.
Sounds like physics to me.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 27 January 2014 13:36, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Very good points that you make, but they are peripheral What I am
trying to draw attention is: How did the order and the relating come to
pass? (in the last sentence you wrote.)
This is the
On 1/26/2014 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
If what you claim was true everything that fell towards a black hole would never enter
it and would be perpetually stuck around the boundary.
You're not paying attention. The disagreement was whether a far away observer ever *sees*
the infalling
On 27 January 2014 13:39, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
By that standard we would still be living in caves
Teehee. Have you been reading Camille Paglia...
Personally I think this should be a touchstone for all people with
unconventional ideas. Once you
On 1/26/2014 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Respectfully, I don't have time to argue what is well known. If you don't believe me ask
others here, or a physicist.
You already asked a physicist. I'm a physicist, and what you're selling is not only not
well known, it's well known to be
Dear LizR,
I will let Kevin Knuth answer for me:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1831
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 13:36, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Very good points that you make, but they
On 27 January 2014 14:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I will let Kevin Knuth answer for me:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1831
Thanks, I will add that to my reading list.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 1/26/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
It's common knowledge - well, amongst people who are interested in this sort of thing -
that an outside observer sees an infalling object get stuck just outside the event
horizon of a black hole (and then fade away as it redshifts towards infinity)
This was
On 27 January 2014 15:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
It's common knowledge - well, amongst people who are interested in this
sort of thing - that an outside observer sees an infalling object get stuck
just outside the event horizon of a black
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be
responsible for my or our existence.
Sounds like physics to
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible for
existence - hence primitive materialism makes matter (energy etc) play the
part of God, in that sense. I can see that - an
On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Formhttp://www.lawsofform.org/lof.htmlare
the place to start...
I'll add that to my reading list.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Brent,
The way it works is that objects do NOT appear to pile up at the event
horizon. What happens is that they (as you correctly mentioned) appear to
slow their approach to the event horizon to an external observer because
the photons they emit take longer and longer to climb out of the
PS: A slight correction to one sentence in my post below. The rest is good
My sentence By the time they (the falling objects) are actually beyond the
event horizon they are long gone from view. is ambiguous because it
doesn't specify whose clock time is being referenced. It should be
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is
On 1/26/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible for
existence
- hence primitive materialism makes
On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear LizR,
George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form http://www.lawsofform.org/lof.html
are the
place to start...
I'll add that to my
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or
whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room
COULD POSSIBLY
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Tell me what you believe so we can be
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Once again my initial response to Jesse was because he claimed there was a
pile up and their isn't
No I didn't. The very first comment of mine on the subject (you can review
it at
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM,
Dear Jason,
I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists. I
would say that we have a concept of a present moment that we may believe
that each person has. Maybe you are directing this post to Edgar...
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Dear Jason,
The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.
I try to not mistake an idea for something it represents.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen,
If
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists.
I would say that we have a concept of a present moment that we may
believe that each person has. Maybe you are directing
Dear Jason,
As many as are possible.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists.
I
84 matches
Mail list logo
