On 11 November 2013 09:44, John Mikes wrote:
> Liz: it all starts with the proper use of words we use so imroperly.
>
> Musttrynottofeelshadenfreude...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from
On 11/10/2013 12:44 PM, John Mikes wrote:
This is why my agnosticism is based on: The only thing we know is "We Don't".
Do we really know that?? :-)
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an
Liz: it all starts with the proper use of words we use so imroperly.
What is P H Y S I C A L ? the explanational domain where features are
"proven" by other featires of the explanational theoretical domain? (By
instruments from WITHIN)
What is " M E N T A L " ? we live in a maze and use 'langua
On 10 November 2013 04:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Mathematical proof is all that is lacking.
> That is that particles like electrons and quarks are strings.
> That electrons and quarks have mass is established experimentally
>
> Well, they appear to, in the sense that they interact in certain w
e proof?
> Mathematical proof is not enough.
> >Anna
> >
> >From: Roger Clough
> >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:36 AM
> >To: everything-list ; mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com ; 4dworldx ;
> theoretical_physics_board
> >Subject: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental
al_physics_board
> Time: 2013-11-08, 23:52:10
> Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
>
>
>
>
> >First of all, there is no evidence that any strings exist. So, the
> question of mass is irrelevant, unless for the string theoretician. The
> theory requires
: 2013-11-08, 23:52:10
Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
>First of all, there is no evidence that any strings exist. So, the question of
>mass is irrelevant, unless for the string theoretician. The theory requires
>that strings have mass, but where is the proof? Mat
On 08 Nov 2013, at 13:36, Roger Clough wrote:
I need some help.
Yesterday I made the claim that strings
are massless and so are nonphysical (mental, by my definition).
But you can show theoretically that strings have mass, based on
line tension and other variables. So is mass physical ?
Unl
I need some help.
Yesterday I made the claim that strings
are massless and so are nonphysical (mental, by my definition).
But you can show theoretically that strings have mass, based on
line tension and other variables. So is mass physical ?
Unless I am mistaken, mass is always defined in term
9 matches
Mail list logo
