Re: John K. Clark

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:43 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:05:47 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2022 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>> If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue
>>> in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The
>>> period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition
>>> of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is
>>> slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar
>>> aberration will change.
>>>
>>
>> The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of the
>> masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the orbits must
>> change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is the sum of the
>> gravitational and potential energies:
>>
>>E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),
>>
>> where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the
>> earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the total
>> energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is divided by 4,
>> not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also halve. If the KE
>> simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But if the orbit changes,
>> the velocity must change also.
>>
>>
>> To a good approximation the mass of the Earth doesn't matter.
>>
>
It does matter for the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2, although it cancels out
when you equate the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal
acceleration of a circular orbit.

> Whatever it's mass, it can continue in the same radius orbit if the Sun's
>> mass is halved and it's speed is reduced by a factor of 1/sqrt(2).  There's
>> more than one way to halve the energy and you're trying do it changing r
>> and keeping v the same...which would certainly be noticeable to move closer
>> to the Sun.
>>
>
That is the trouble. When the energies change it is not clear that anything
can be kept fixed. You do have trouble with things like gravitational PE
near the earth's surface. mgh is hard to halve at a constant height.

  The way I see it is to keep the same orbital path at a lower
>> speed...which is measureable by the change in stellar abberation, event if
>> atomic clocks tick slower because of the energy change.
>>
>
I think we agree that however you cut it,  there are going to be noticeable
changes because we use secondary standards for things like distance and
time -- we do not refer everything to Caesium clocks (even if that is the
standard).

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTm4UvjcqoR%3D%2BHm3zKVtRDbuvT8Z1ri2y-tpbDZUSb9pw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:05:47 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 5/5/2022 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue 
>> in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The 
>> period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition 
>> of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is 
>> slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar 
>> aberration will change.
>>
>
> The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of the 
> masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the orbits must 
> change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is the sum of the 
> gravitational and potential energies:
>
>E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),
>
> where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the 
> earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the total 
> energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is divided by 4, 
> not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also halve. If the KE 
> simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But if the orbit changes, 
> the velocity must change also.
>
>
> To a good approximation the mass of the Earth doesn't matter.  Whatever 
> it's mass, it can continue in the same radius orbit if the Sun's mass is 
> halved and it's speed is reduced by a factor of 1/sqrt(2).  There's more 
> than one way to halve the energy and you're trying do it changing r and 
> keeping v the same...which would certainly be noticeable to move closer to 
> the Sun.  The way I see it is to keep the same orbital path at a lower 
> speed...which is measureable by the change in stellar abberation, event if 
> atomic clocks tick slower because of the energy change.
>
>
>
> The problems are magnified when we consider the potential energy of a mass 
> lifted from the surface of the earth:
> PE = mgh. Now g = GM/(r^2), so it halves along with the mass m. So mgh is 
> reduced by a factor of 4 unless the height doubles in order for the PE to 
> change only by a factor of two. I think these effects would be very 
> noticeable, so the idea that one can halve the energy in a branch without 
> causing any changes within the branch is just a nonsense.
>
> The idea that the SI definition of the second will also change to 
> compensate other changes is as silly a notion as one could imagine.
>
>
> It's determined by the energy difference of two levels of the cesium 
> atom.  Why wouldn't it change?
>
> Brent
>

Thanks for these replies. I intuited that Clark's scenario must be wrong 
since after not too many splits, gravity is gone and so will closed orbits. 
AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e06266f-643f-42dc-9098-11287cbd641cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/5/2022 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to
continue in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be
halved.  The period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2). 
Will the SI definition of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I
think so.  But if the Earth is slower in the same orbit, the
measurements of the speed of light by stellar aberration will change.


The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of 
the masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the 
orbits must change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is 
the sum of the gravitational and potential energies:


 E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),

where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the 
earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the 
total energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is 
divided by 4, not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also 
halve. If the KE simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But 
if the orbit changes, the velocity must change also.


To a good approximation the mass of the Earth doesn't matter. Whatever 
it's mass, it can continue in the same radius orbit if the Sun's mass is 
halved and it's speed is reduced by a factor of 1/sqrt(2).  There's more 
than one way to halve the energy and you're trying do it changing r and 
keeping v the same...which would certainly be noticeable to move closer 
to the Sun.  The way I see it is to keep the same orbital path at a 
lower speed...which is measureable by the change in stellar abberation, 
event if atomic clocks tick slower because of the energy change.




The problems are magnified when we consider the potential energy of a 
mass lifted from the surface of the earth:
PE = mgh. Now g = GM/(r^2), so it halves along with the mass m. So mgh 
is reduced by a factor of 4 unless the height doubles in order for the 
PE to change only by a factor of two. I think these effects would be 
very noticeable, so the idea that one can halve the energy in a branch 
without causing any changes within the branch is just a nonsense.


The idea that the SI definition of the second will also change to 
compensate other changes is as silly a notion as one could imagine.


It's determined by the energy difference of two levels of the cesium 
atom.  Why wouldn't it change?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fe173e7-33f6-ce82-db21-c7220925bf54%40gmail.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue in
> the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The period, a
> year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition of the
> second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is slower in
> the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar
> aberration will change.
>

The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of the
masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the orbits must
change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is the sum of the
gravitational and potential energies:

   E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),

where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the
earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the total
energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is divided by 4,
not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also halve. If the KE
simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But if the orbit changes,
the velocity must change also.

The problems are magnified when we consider the potential energy of a mass
lifted from the surface of the earth:
PE = mgh. Now g = GM/(r^2), so it halves along with the mass m. So mgh is
reduced by a factor of 4 unless the height doubles in order for the PE to
change only by a factor of two. I think these effects would be very
noticeable, so the idea that one can halve the energy in a branch without
causing any changes within the branch is just a nonsense.

The idea that the SI definition of the second will also change to
compensate other changes is as silly a notion as one could imagine.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR9capenEeFb5MetW39HOPjDpUaK2XTjtnNgqOR7AGqzw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Brent Meeker]

If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue 
in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The 
period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2). Will the SI 
definition of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the 
Earth is slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of 
light by stellar aberration will change.


Brent

On 5/5/2022 2:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Why do you lack the guts to explain how planetary orbits can remain 
intact in the MWI, if Sean's claim that they reduce in energy 
according to Born's rule as the splits occur? AG


On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:46:26 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

You Sir are an ass.

John K Clark

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:39 PM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins
University? Rumor has it he was booted from Caltech after an
insolent episode with its President. Sean insisted that energy
of each world of the MWI reduces via applying Born's rule and
that planets will nontheless remain in orbit despite
reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the
phenonomen would remain undetected -- to which the President
asked if the Sun would still be seen in daytime after a few
iterations of this process. Sean replied; "Who the fuck asked
you to look out the window?" AG

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson
wrote:

I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but
somewhat explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous
of my relationship with Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a
big deal. I have a major regret that he didn't go through
and publish what would have been my third citation during
that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager
2's Neptune encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did
I suspect that five short years later Pollack would pass
away, and two years later Sagan. AG

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan
Grayson wrote:

Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what
University? Are you now retired? Just curious. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a42d937a-02b6-615b-6a2c-4cdb24d34347%40gmail.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:18:49 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> You're  incapable of having an honest discussion. AG
>

I don't think you get it. No one responded to your claim because they 
viewed you as a hopeless case. AG 

>
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:16:31 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>  Yep, short term memory loss.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:13 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you lack the guts to explain how planetary orbits can remain 
>>> intact in the MWI, if Sean's claim that they reduce in energy according to 
>>> Born's rule as the splits occur? AG
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:46:26 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 You Sir are an ass.

 John K Clark 

 On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:39 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University? 
> Rumor has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with 
> its 
> President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via 
> applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit 
> despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen 
> would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would 
> still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean 
> replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG
>
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat 
>> explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship 
>> with 
>> Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that 
>> he 
>> didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation 
>> during 
>> that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune 
>> encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short 
>> years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? 
>>> Are you now retired? Just curious. AG
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
 -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/90944456-8b7d-438d-856b-f026618412b2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Alan Grayson]

You're  incapable of having an honest discussion. AG

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:16:31 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>   Yep, short term memory loss.
>
> John K Clark
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:13 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>> Why do you lack the guts to explain how planetary orbits can remain 
>> intact in the MWI, if Sean's claim that they reduce in energy according to 
>> Born's rule as the splits occur? AG
>>
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:46:26 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> You Sir are an ass.
>>>
>>> John K Clark 
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:39 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
 Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University? 
 Rumor has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with its 
 President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via 
 applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit 
 despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen 
 would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would 
 still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean 
 replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG

 On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat 
> explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship with 
> Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that he 
> didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation 
> during 
> that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune 
> encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short 
> years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG
>
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? 
>> Are you now retired? Just curious. AG
>
> -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4982a73d-2bda-41f4-8244-da3a449c7b1dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[John Clark]

  Yep, short term memory loss.

John K Clark

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:13 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Why do you lack the guts to explain how planetary orbits can remain intact
> in the MWI, if Sean's claim that they reduce in energy according to Born's
> rule as the splits occur? AG
>
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:46:26 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You Sir are an ass.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:39 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University?
>>> Rumor has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with its
>>> President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via
>>> applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit
>>> despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen
>>> would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would
>>> still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean
>>> replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
 I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat
 explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship with
 Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that he
 didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation during
 that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune
 encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short
 years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG

 On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? Are
> you now retired? Just curious. AG

 --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2oZzT-v7g87rTgHCAEAvocr0wBPDuiFW0p%3DgTy%3DfexpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Alan Grayson]

Why do you lack the guts to explain how planetary orbits can remain intact 
in the MWI, if Sean's claim that they reduce in energy according to Born's 
rule as the splits occur? AG

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:46:26 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You Sir are an ass.
>
> John K Clark 
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:39 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>> Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University? 
>> Rumor has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with its 
>> President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via 
>> applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit 
>> despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen 
>> would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would 
>> still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean 
>> replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat 
>>> explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship with 
>>> Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that he 
>>> didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation during 
>>> that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune 
>>> encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short 
>>> years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
 Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? Are 
 you now retired? Just curious. AG
>>>
>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[John Clark]

You Sir are an ass.

John K Clark

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:39 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University? Rumor
> has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with its
> President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via
> applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit
> despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen
> would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would
> still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean
> replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG
>
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat
>> explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship with
>> Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that he
>> didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation during
>> that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune
>> encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short
>> years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? Are
>>> you now retired? Just curious. AG
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2USH_hXd8AhgBAmtHNGsZzcYKu6PG7Qf8Xm7xSHqngsg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: John K. Clark

[Alan Grayson]

Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University? Rumor 
has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with its 
President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via 
applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit 
despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen 
would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would 
still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean 
replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat 
> explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship with 
> Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that he 
> didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation during 
> that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune 
> encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short 
> years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG
>
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:24 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? Are 
>> you now retired? Just curious. AG
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:50 PM  wrote:

> Beyond my intellectual pay scale Jason. So far, nobody has developed a
> Turing passable machine that knocks us down with it's effectiveness to pass
> as a human "soul."  I would be happy to let humans be human and instead, &
> amp up our technological capabilities via machine intelligence.
>

It becomes a practical question then, how much can we augment human
capabilities while retaining our humanity. If you gave an ant human-level
intelligence, how much would remain of its ant-ness?


> Thus, making wonderful medicines, and anti-pollution systems, and keep the
> conversations from human to human. For neurobiology I suppose I know what I
> read. :-(   Beyond this, for me it's akin to postulating whether there is a
> multiverse and if it is initiated by Everett's MW, or Linde (and company)
> Eternal Inflation?
>

I would say both are initiated by the same source: platonic equations.
Eternal inflation is the result of certain satisfactions of GR/QM
equations, while Everett's MW is a manifestation of observerhood within an
infinite ensemble of indistinguishable situations (which again, I think
share a common source in platonic objects, which exist necessarily as
denying them leads to contradiction).


>
> So the other shoe needs to be dropped: Do we get a choice in this?  If we
> do, can we travel back and forth for trade missions to either clone earths,
> or entirely different inhabited worlds unrelated to being copies and
> variations?
>

I don't think that QM will allow this, but simulation will allow us to
explore other worlds, and also we might enable trade and interaction
between such simulated worlds, when they are not entirely closed off.


> If we are conscious do we get a choice with this over that? imitating, via
> complex computer processes that imitate or emulate what spindle cells do
> might make machinery conscious, maybe? Should this, will this get a budget?
>

The EU has given over a billion euros to the human brain project, which has
the stated goal of simulating the human brain.

Jason


>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, May 2, 2022 7:18 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Artificial Life Conscious?
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:39 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I had read that spindle cells delineate consciousness, according to
> neurobiologists. Anyone see anything different?
>
>
> Spindle neurons are very large cells, with their fibers stretching long
> enough to connect distant brain regions.
>
> I would think then, an equally valid explanation of spindle neurons is
> they are a necessary adaptation in any creature with a sufficiently large
> brain.
>
> Since we tend to associate consciousness with complex behaviors, and
> complex behaviors are often associated with animals that have large brains,
> I think may account for the correlation between the presumed consciousness
> of other species and presence of spindle neurons in those species' brains.
>
> At least, I think this is a reasonable alternative explanation.
>
> Jason
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjNiiPu%2B-Zi%2BvbYJt7nmL874jFiAiF5WKvdtViSYY0CXg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhKasvOZzW4JkPdnRdwaynoGp2DnqSaho1osi-vevZ4tA%40mail.gmail.com.

Artists will soon be unemployed

[John Clark]

DALL-E2 Draws Anything You Describe


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1tNrZdNc47EY6OEUe0A2Qdn5yxfzHZn0KzQgzRt7ijVg%40mail.gmail.com.

FW: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

[Philip Benjamin]

Philip Benjamin Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:19 AM  general_the...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?
Hi, Rosie:
Doesn't that depend on how you define life itself? If life is defined as energy 
then almost everything is energy and life!! Then the question is what is 
energy? Nobody knows. A good beginning will be to define self-consciousness, 
i.e. to be conscious of "self". Then if self is not real, consciousness is also 
unreal and does not belong to the realm of science. If self is real and 
invisible the only candidate for that is bio dark-matter body "twin" cocreated 
with its own chemistry (computational) at the moment of conception, made of 
dark particles of negligible mass with respect to electron. Resonance between 
the twins will be a basis for self-consciousness. Resonance is rudimentary 
recognition.
Philip.
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online 
mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 12:54 PM
To: general_the...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

Dear Philip,



1. To be conscious does something have to have a brain?

2. To be conscious does it have to be capable of reproducing?



rosie



-- Original Message --
From: "Philip Benjamin" 
mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>>
To: "general_the...@googlegroups.com" 
mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 4 May, 22 At 18:43
Subject: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: RE: Is Artificial Life Conscious?
[Philip Benjamin]
The question: "If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, 
(because they have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life 
forms be conscious for the same reasons? " is irrelevant. Simple creatures 
reproduce. Will robots reproduce? Baby robots? Do they have a desire for and 
grow on the pablum of metal powder and vaseline? Simple creatures 
trans-speciated from what ? Worms evolve into worms? The oldest fossils found 
are algae and bacteria. Still the same type of bacteria and algae today!!
Philip Benjamin
Nonconformist to Marxist-Socialist pagan globalism of the WAMP.
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>  .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB52649CF02272522F7760ECC2A8C29%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.