Hi John,
On 23 Nov 2013, at 20:55, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
"...Health should separate from the State, like the Church."
I respectfully disagree.
I appreciate :)
Health care is a societal duty to be provided for those unfortunate
who are not capable of covering their needs - like
You mean the belief that we can explain everything? I think Raymond
Smullyan said something simliar.
On 24 November 2013 02:04, Roger Clough wrote:
> Atheism is wish fulfillment.
>
>
> Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
> See my Leibniz site at
> http://independent.academia.edu/Roger
To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism" is
wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as
far as I understand them.
On 24 November 2013 04:56, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Nov 2013, at 14:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>
>
> Atheism is wish fu
On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote:
To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism"
is wrong. But otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at
least as far as I understand them.
Atheism is also the belief in NO afterlife, which is close to not
making much
Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the physical
reality?"
We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense. There has to be
a purpose, and there has to be some sort of an outcome.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:
Science may never answer the WHY question, but it surely must answer the HOW
question. Once we know how, we will likely know why? Right now our ability to
understand the universe has been hampered by insufficient tools to observe and
analyze what was. But we have become much better over the las
Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the notion
that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of a Von
Newmann thing then Conway)??
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 11:06 pm
Subjec
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM, wrote:
> Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to the
> notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular automata (more of
> a Von Newmann thing then Conway)??
This is really cool, but I don't think that the GoL is enough to mo
On 24 Nov 2013, at 14:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
Bruno asks: "Should we search, or not, for a reason behind the
physical reality?"
We must, otherwise this life itself doesn't make any sense.
That is not entirely clear to me. In a sense, I can agree, but this is
because the natural numbers
Liz: your precise version (with Bruno's rounding it up) makes me evoid to
call myself an atheist:
An 'atheist' requires god(s) to DENY.
In my (rather agnostic) worldview there is no place (requirement) for
supernatural (whatever that may be) 'forces' to control "nature".
I feel reluctant to draw c
On 24 Nov 2013, at 17:02, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Do you think that Conway's Game of Life and this new app, speak to
the notion that we ourselves might be living within a cellular
automata (more of a Von Newmann thing then Conway)??
Conway's game of life is (Turing) Universal, so it can
There are variations. Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist by his political opponents.
And they were correct since he seems to have been a deist, not a theist.
Do you think there is a difference between believing the God of Abraham does not exist and
failing to believe that He does?
Brent
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>> " Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely
>>> above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic
>>> effects from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet."
>>
>>
>
>Hard to reconcile that
If it was just the Christian God then believers in Odin and the Ancient
Romans and Egyptians and so on would all be "atheists" which seems a bit
silly!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop re
On 11/24/2013 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Nov 2013, at 10:06, LizR wrote:
To be exact it's the belief that no gods exist, i.e. that "theism" is wrong. But
otherwise it does seem to echo Aristotle and Plato, at least as far as I understand them.
Atheism is also the belief in NO after
On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !* (Not that only guns could
> kill, but they are the easiest to use in killing other human beings. And it
> brings huge advantage to entrepreneurs and State Governments).
>
>
> We should not prohibit g
On 25 November 2013 10:53, meekerdb wrote:
>
> That isn't a problem at all. It's just like the arguments about the
> existence of god; first you have to define what you mean by "god" before
> you can answer whether "god exists" or not. So what is the definition of
> "physical reality"? It seems
So far left out of this discussion is that the physical reality that we
observe and derive physical laws for may be only 5% of the universe, the
other 95% being comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which are
actually just placeholders for the unknown.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:53 PM, meekerd
That reminds me of turtles all the way down.
To make a fusion bomb, you need a fission bomb;
and to make a fission bomb you need a chemical bomb.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 24 November 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> And - PLEASE - do not forget the *G U N S !*
And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to
make that you need a source of electricity, I imagine, which is also down
to chemical energy of some sort. However I imagine the buck stops here, or
hereabouts.
On 25 November 2013 13:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> That re
It seems unlikely that the nature of dark matter and dark energy will
change the ontological status of matter generally. A materialist, for
example, will assume that they are "more of the same" -- but less
interactive, at least with our 5%.
On 25 November 2013 13:08, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> S
It may not stop in the other direction.
For example to make a supernova you need fusion.
Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, LizR wrote:
> And to make a chemical bomb explode you need a detonator, I assume, and to
> make that you need
I don't quite see what you're getting at here.
On 25 November 2013 13:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> It may not stop in the other direction.
> For example to make a supernova you need fusion.
> Perhaps it stops at the Big Bang, but it ain't necessarily so.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM,
Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode.
It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs.
Not sure what comes after supernovas
unless you are willing to believe following Poplawski theory
that black holes can give birth the baby universes via baby big bangs
On Sun, Nov 2
On 25 November 2013 14:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode.
>
I like to think of them as fusion reactors. I believe only a few of them
are capable of exploding.
> It's just going in the direction of higher energy bombs.
>
> Not sure what comes
He just solved equations of the theory of General Relativity with spin
called the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity,
[which] takes into account effects from quantum mechanics.
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:31 PM,
That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though...
"The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state would
cause an intense production of particles, since energy can be converted
into matter. This process would further increase the mass inside the black
hole."
Surely
This looks like another article on the same theory.
http://phys.org/news189792839.html#nRlv
On 25 November 2013 14:54, LizR wrote:
> That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though...
>
> "The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed state
> would cause an intense
I think you are correct. However, the extra particles produce extra spin
and torsion while the mass stayed constant.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM, LizR wrote:
> That's very interesting. I don't understand this, though...
>
> "The immensely high gravitational energy in this densely packed sta
Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in
the Bagavatum
Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose.
Poplawski theory says that the baby universe forms at the sametime as the
black hole.
I will be looking for developments of this theory where
OK. I'm just a bit sceptical of the writers now, because what they said in
the bit I quoted didn't seem correct, so maybe they made other mistakes.
But in any case it's an interesting theory.
On 25 November 2013 15:29, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> I think you are correct. However, the extra particl
On 25 November 2013 15:46, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Being of the Hindu faith (among others) I am compelled to relate that in
> the Bagavatum
> Vishnu sits in a Cosmic Egg with universes streaming out of his nose.
>
I'm sure they nicked that from Douglas Adams. Beware the great white
handkerchief
Stars are the visible manifestation of the meta-stable equilibrium between
the explosive power of fusion and the compressive power of gravity. In the
end gravity wins - for the most part (or percentage of mass that is)
Chris
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@goog
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Stars are essentially fusion bombs and stars can explode.
>
I like the analogy that stars are essentially just giant compost heaps.
The levels of energy production in the core of the sun is quite low on a
per-volume basis: a few hundred
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Nuclear power
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stars are essentially fusion bom
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Chris de Morsella
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:33 PM
> *To:* Everything List
> *Subject:* Re: Nuclear power
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> O
36 matches
Mail list logo
