> On 20 May 2019, at 01:15, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:37:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:37:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 May
> On 17 May 2019, at 09:04, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell >
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell > wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> >
>> > ‘I believe there are
>> 15,
Eddington wrote a book "Fundamental Theory" which was apparently never
quite finished. I only know of it because there's a book I have by
Higman "Applied Group Theoretic and Matrix Methods" that devotes the
last chapter to a review of Eddington's "Quantum Relativity" in which he
says he gives
Am 16.05.2019 um 19:05 schrieb Bruno Marchal:
On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of
particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.
Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea
where this e
> On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of
> particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256.
Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea
where this estimation comes from, and why it would b
> On 15 May 2019, at 03:07, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi >
> > wrote:
> >
> > ‘I believe there are
> > 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,7
On 5/16/2019 4:48 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Cro
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:58:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal w
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>> >
>>> > ‘
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/14/2019 10:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons we
> see are just the same electron weaving through space and time" would
> explain telepathy and precog
On 5/14/2019 10:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
That "there is only one electron in the universe. All these electrons
we see are just the same electron weaving through space and time"
would explain telepathy and precognition.
Only the way "God did it." explains the miracles at Lourdes.
Brent
Am 15.05.2019 um 07:59 schrieb Philip Thrift:
...
On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
‘I believe there are
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number
of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. To show it more vividly, he has
written this result in full.
Evgenii
Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal:
On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
‘I believe there a
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> >
>> > ‘I believe there are
>> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:24:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi >
> wrote:
> >
> > ‘I believe there are
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
>
> protons in the universe,
> On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> ‘I believe there are
> 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
> protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
>
> Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy
‘I believe there are
15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296
protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’
Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1
On 28 Jan 2015, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite
precision would entail the falsity of computationalism.
Yes, and if the theory was correct it would also prove that the R
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite
> precision would entail the falsity of computationalism.
>
Yes, and if the theory was correct it would also prove that the Real
Numbers are really real.
John K Clark
On 28 Jan 2015, at 10:55, LizR wrote:
I must admit I am a little suspicious of a theory that requires
nature to exhibit infinite precision.
Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite
precision would entail the falsity of computationalism.
The apparent existence of
I must admit I am a little suspicious of a theory that requires nature to
exhibit infinite precision.
--
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
Tronnies may explain the need for π’s precission.
Coulomb’s Law requires that all charged particles be point particles or made
from point particles. Tronnies are point particles with a charge of plus e or
minus e. Their charge of e means the tronnies are the source of the Coulomb
force whi
26 matches
Mail list logo
