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
T (ret.) [1/1/2000]
> See my Leibniz site at
> http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Anna
> Receiver: everything-list,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com
> ,4dworldx,theoretical_physics_board
> Time: 2013-11-0
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
