Hi All, 5-23-09
Time, like truth, is subjective; it is a feeling
about something. In terms of natural selection,
it is to our advantage to be able to predict
what is going to happen; and time is a series of
events, heart beats or sunrises, that lets us
keep track of things.
Jack Smith
Harry Veeder wrote:
You mean the general phenomena of 'motion' rather than velocity.
Yes. I've said velocity to be able to write the formula: t=s/v
First it comes motion, and after that we can talk about rate of
motion(i.e. velocity) and from then on we can talk about time.
Incidentally,
Taylor J. Smith wrote:
Hi All, 5-23-09
Time, like truth, is subjective; it is a feeling
about something. In terms of natural selection,
it is to our advantage to be able to predict
what is going to happen; and time is a series of
events, heart beats or sunrises, that lets us
keep
This would seem to be encouraging news from May 23 2009, The Kiplinger Letter:
Excerpt:
FEDERAL SPENDING:
Gaining prominence in Washington: Science research...even basic
science, which doesn't yield quick economic payoff. It's cheering
Mauro,
Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have
not made a good case for the assertion that velocity (motion) is more
basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is
time.
In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html
Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?
DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together,
even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be
able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.
Jones Beene wrote:
Mauro,
Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have
not made a good case for the assertion that velocity (motion) is more
basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is
time.
In every case you site, you are in
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics,
epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is
the same, time dimensions.
I believe your argument would be negated by successful
Umm, if we are talking nanometer distances... water is, due to
naturally h+ and oh - dissasociation, going to have pockets of charge.
mighten they not be moving towards each other, but towards the same
patch of water?
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mounted the barricade and roared out:
The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack
underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
physical level; that is,
This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's
Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory:
http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101
A motion or space/time unit is the fundamental particle of the
universe, and exists in 3D.
Note it is not a unit moving around in space
Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics,
epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is
the same, time dimensions.
I believe your
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:
This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's
Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory:
http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101
A motion or space/time unit is the fundamental particle of the
universe, and exists in 3D.
A motion
On May 23, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
wrote:
The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics,
epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or
which is
the same, time dimensions.
What I find most interesting is that it is funded by people who know
no physics but want to physically know.
Terry
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
On May 23, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy
In reply to leaking pen's message of Sat, 23 May 2009 10:15:40 -0700:
Hi,
I think you are almost on the right track. There was recently a demonstration of
how water molecules could align with one another to a depth of hundreds of
thousands of molecules away from a surface. In so doing they form
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 22 May 2009 17:37:22 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
Which comes first - the chicken or the egg?
The egg came first. It was laid by a non-chicken who was so dumb that it didn't
even realize that what came out of the egg was a different species, and looked
after
Exactly. the more i think of it, the more i wonder also... a lot of
dna movement in liquids , the charge and polarity, is based on the
final few bps on each end. I wonder if same bp ends but different
strands would end up together...
that or size in general. you know, the same thing that
18 matches
Mail list logo
