Brent,
That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any
authoritative sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH
collapses into the singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the
black hole.
Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot o
I imagine this is he:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll
That took a good 5 seconds!
On the subject of a BH not containing matter, surely that depends on
whether there really *is* a singularity inside it? If it's a genuine
singularity, as GR suggests, then any original matter that went
On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation that proves
1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.
It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in the absence of
matter (y
Brent,
PS: If geometry doesn't make clocks slow then what does?
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:17:56 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> But the twins DO AGREE on whose clock ran slower.
>
> So I don't see your point if you use the twins as evidence...
>
> Edgar
>
> On Monday, J
Brent,
But the twins DO AGREE on whose clock ran slower.
So I don't see your point if you use the twins as evidence...
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:27:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Jesse,
> >
> > First this doesn't have anything to do wit
Brent,
Let me ask you some questions to clarify what you are saying here...
To make it simpler assume two observers, A and B. A is stationary on the
surface of a hugely massive planet. Now B plummets past him in free fall.
Consider the situation as B passes A just before he hits the ground.
I
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate the
>> strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer,
>> why would suppose in advance that this GOAR
On 29 January 2014 08:29, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Liz, Others,
>
"Good morning Professor Marchal!"
>
> In the general semantic of Leibniz, we have a non empty set of worlds W,
> and some valuation of the propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) at each
> world.
>
> And we should be convinced th
All, again a post FYI, not because I necessarily believe it. Edgar
Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the
universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and
no end.
As one of the few astr
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your interpretation
that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an open mind.
And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who is
presumably your friend says via an email.
Again I challenge you to pr
On 29 January 2014 05:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> >> Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever
>> >> sense
>> >> you understand that, can the Ch
On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of
'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources
On 28 January 2014 18:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's because the theory prevents the truth about it from being accessed.
> The theory of comp is blind to its blindness, and demands to be refuted
> only by those wearing blindfolds. To test fairly, you would have to take
> off the blindfold, but
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several
others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter
13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and
NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that
1. Mat
Hi Liz, Others,
In the general semantic of Leibniz, we have a non empty set of worlds
W, and some valuation of the propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) at
each world.
And we should be convinced than all formula, with A, B, C, put for any
formula, of the type
[](A->B) -> ([]A -> []B)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, LizR wrote:
> I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
> floating around the web.
>
They were real, real enough to provoke a furious response from thousands
of American hillbillies in the 1930's such as:
"Professor Einstein, I be
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
>> I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
>> goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
>> existence of the uni
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
> >> Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever
> sense
> >> you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you
> think
> >>
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:31:07 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5
On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven Hubble
expansion of space around galaxies.
The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to
On 28 Jan 2014, at 14:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 January 2014 10:59, Cr
On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Supposing there is a "ground of all reality", as some would nominate the
strings of
string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would
suppose
in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means),
On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.
Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise of monotheism and
the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique reality. That is the motor of the
fundamental inqui
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we
should not attribute any importance. I would use "tao", that would make the results
looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter into a God, and
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why
do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?
To say "I don't believ
On 1/28/2014 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE eliminate the terms of
the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or
the N rays, etc.
Just as an aside, "N rays" is now used to describe neutron
On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On S
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cow
On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:57, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal wrote:
if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds
that p is true in at least one world.
You need just
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you elimin
On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense
>> you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you think
>> that is impossible?
>
>
> Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is diff
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote:
>
> On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:52:47 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
I think that 0+1=1 already requires conscious
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the
difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven
Hubble expansion of space around galaxies.
The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion.
It seems to b
Hi Jason,
The wiki doesn't seem to be working :( I get a 404...
Cheers,
Telmo.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Russell,
>
> Yes, I also tried to salvage what was available from the web archive, but
> unfortunate it looks like the archiver never found the wiki to begin wit
On 28 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Folks,
Check out this paper by Kevin Knuth. In it he shows how one can
obtain space-time (and its Lorentz symmetry in the limit) from
interactions between observers and some basic relational algebra.
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-conte
On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that
from the start, then all f
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sa
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
>> Bu
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:19, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From
that, one cannot deduce that he th
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
>>> rhetorical I'd really like a
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as
their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To
stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I
kn
On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:13, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein
quotes floating around the web.
They were real, but taken out of the context.
But they made my point
Oops send a message by mistake, sorry. Comment below.
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rh
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no a
On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
>
> After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
> Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one
> cannot deduce that he thought you *can *believe in a non-p
On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:38, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown
principle responsible
On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their
> precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a
> concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only
> atheists to stuck the God conc
On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
>
> I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
> floating around the web.
>
> They were real, but taken out of the context.
>
> But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:52, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
physicalist) theology for granted.
I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3
of that book is really informative about Einstein's
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch
wrote:
> I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people
on this planet once use
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein
quotes floating around the web.
They were real, but taken out of the context.
But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of
confessional religion. Like Gödel.
Bruno
On 27 Jan 2014, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do
not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it
On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/
On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson
wrote:
> There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are
true statements lacking proof.
Yes.
> There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of
whose falsehood is
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:30, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Some basic.questions. When you say PA, do you mean the set of all
theorems entailed by the axioms of Peano arithmetic?
Yes. In some context it means only the axioms, but often I use the
same expression to denote the axioms and its logical co
On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is
supposed to
59 matches
Mail list logo
