Doug wrote:
> Charlie wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!
>
> I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me
> feel groggy and slightly nauseous.
I'm sorry!
One of the scripts I got after my surgery last fall (I had 2 different
painkillers) included a
Doug wrote:
> Sorry I haven’t responded to previous posts; I just had minor surgery
> (doing fine) and being high on vicodin isn't much of an advantage in
> an this kind of discussion.
No, but it makes it a lot of fun to watch Yellow Submarine :)
Julia
Been There, Done That
_
On 13/02/2007, at 5:43 PM, Doug wrote:
> Charlie wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!
>
> I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me
> feel groggy and slightly nauseous.
Coincidentally, that's precisely how physics makes me feel...
Charlie
___
Charlie wrote:
> On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!
I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me feel groggy
and slightly nauseous.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 13/02/2007, at 3:07 PM, Doug wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>
>> As an aside, the first results of GP-B will be given at the APS
>> meeting in
>> April. My guess is that they are not earth shatteringor
>> they'd be
>> pre-announced in the press.
>
> I just spoke with someone who spent a good d
Dan wrote:
> As an aside, the first results of GP-B will be given at the APS meeting in
> April. My guess is that they are not earth shatteringor they'd be
> pre-announced in the press.
I just spoke with someone who spent a good deal of time on that project and he
seems to agree with you.
>
> Going back to basics, it seems to me that our experience with orbital
> mechanics for spacecraft and satelites and our use of the "slingshot
> effect" to propel interplanetary missions to the outer solar system
> are pretty good evidence that we have a good theory and a good grasp
> of it.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
>
> Original Message:
> -
> From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:
Original Message:
-
From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:35 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
Klaus wrote:
> Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.
>Not really. All we&#
Klaus wrote:
> Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.
Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't work without
it. That type 1A su
>
> As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity. All
> we notice is that things keep falling to the ground
> > Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
> > it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of
> > that.
>
> As long as the universe is 74% "mysterious" dark energy, for which there
is no
> direct evidence.
Yup, but we've got indirect "evide
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Doug
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:31 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Actually
Dan wrote:
> Actually, atoms, protons, neutrons, pions, etc. are not orbital in nature.
Are there similarities in structure?
> Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
> it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of
> that.
As long as the
- Original Message -
From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
> Still, it doesn't seem to change anything we know a
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
> Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)
>
[Guessing]
Delayed Choice?
xponent
Anthropic Digre
On 04/02/2007, at 6:48 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> I think the key "new" idea is given in this paragraph:
>
> "At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts
> individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big
> Bang. The patches become an infinite numbe
Original Message:
-
From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:33:41 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
Rob wrote:
> AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
> we know it.
Original Message:
-
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:29:10 +1100
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>
Rob wrote:
> AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
> we know it.
> Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
> background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
> edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea o
- Original Message -
From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
> On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>
&
On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
>
> On 01/02/2007, at 1
On 02/02/2007, at 11:02 AM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> Wellthat is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry
> might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might
> not be possible.
> WRT that, I think it is a valid question.
Sure, but there will also be many m
On 2/1/2007 7:33:42 AM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> >
> > Heh!
> >
> I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant
> having
> > differing values.
>
>
> I know that's
> what you meant, but it still seems to b
On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> Heh!
> I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant having
> differing values.
I know that's what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way-
round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the
On 1/31/2007 9:35:28 PM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 01/02/2007, at 2:13 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
>
> > IOW, will the daughter universes be as favorable for life as ours,
> > or
> > will they be random iterations?
>
> Very tiny, almost unmeasurably small, bits of our univ
On 01/02/2007, at 2:13 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
> IOW, will the daughter universes be as favorable for life as ours, or
> will they be random iterations?
Very tiny, almost unmeasurably small, bits of our universe are
favourable to life. This whole "fine tuning" set of arguments strikes
On 1/31/2007 8:54:36 PM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> >
> >
> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
> any
> > start or end of time,"
> Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
>
> Um... I thought Big
On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any
> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.
What they're doing is presenting
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Endless_Universe_Made_Possible_By_New_Model_999.html
A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly
expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and
solving a thorny modern physics problem, according to University of
North Carol
30 matches
Mail list logo
