The unity of geometry and physics.
=..
My questions are:
Can 'dirac's virtual particles' have geometrical form of circle?
Can we use Euler equation to this circle- particle ?
Which physical laws can we use to this circle- particle ?
How can be tied Euler equation, physical laws and
circle- parti
On 20 Feb 2013, at 06:19, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
On Feb 19, 3:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In front of the infinite? To laugh.
In front of nothingness? To cry.
In between, a bit of both.
Bruno
- Show quoted text -
Nice, thanks.
By the way, your photos 'par Lydia Nash' nice too.
All
. . . the electric universe . . . ? !
=.
Vacuum energy is some kind of energy in the infinite space
between billion and billion galaxies.
In this infinite space virtual potential energy particles exist
with energy: E=Mc^2.
Using inner impulse h*=h/2pi they appears from vacuum
as phenomena wi
On Feb 19, 3:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> In front of the infinite? To laugh.
> In front of nothingness? To cry.
> In between, a bit of both.
>
> Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice, thanks.
By the way, your photos 'par Lydia Nash' nice too.
All the best.
=
--
You received this message becau
On 19 Feb 2013, at 07:47, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:28 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Quite wise statements indeed.
But is that not a reason to be cautious
with general statement like you did above in the Biswas quote ?
Bruno
==
Oh, we are very careful.
We do every t
On Feb 18, 5:28 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Quite wise statements indeed.
But is that not a reason to be cautious
> with general statement like you did above in the Biswas quote ?
>
> Bruno
>
==
Oh, we are very careful.
We do every thing to escape infinity and nothingness.
And, indeed,
On 18 Feb 2013, at 14:35, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental
science?
Bruno
=>
In Physics we trust.
/ Tarun Biswas /
http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/
Of course, it is
On Feb 18, 12:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental science?
>
> Bruno
=>
In Physics we trust.
/ Tarun Biswas /
http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/
Of course, it is correct, because only Physics can logically
explain us
On 18 Feb 2013, at 06:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Klein &Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
=.
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been
demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However,
it is inappropriate and, as
On 17 Feb 2013, at 23:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2013 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.
It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number
into a (non normalized) gaussian:
(e^ix)2 = e^(-x2)
I love also Euler even deeper identity relati
On 17 Feb 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard Un
Feynman about infinities and renormalization
==.
So we really do not know exactly what it is that we are
assuming that gives us the difficulty producing infinities.
A nice problem !
However, it turns out that it is possible to sweep the infinities
under the rug , by a certain crude skill , and t
Klein &Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
=.
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been
demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However,
it is inappropriate and, as Dingle points out, potentially
dangerous,
to give creden
On 2/17/2013 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.
It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number into
a (non normalized) gaussian:
(e^ix)^2 = e^(-x^2)
I love also Euler even deeper identity relating the square of the
integers and the prime number
On 2/17/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely parad
On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don'
socratus
Schrodinger's cat ( as a quantum particle) is inseparable from
" The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass"
and this unity shows, how QT is right, saying that
there is a life after death.
Robittybob1
Do you really believe that Socrates?
I find you too obscure to unders
Comment:
according to (a)+(b),
when the cat mass change in cat energy,
his image change,
the cat is already in life,
so there is life after death
/ laurent.damois /
===..
On Feb 15, 12:28 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:
> Schrodinger's cat
> and “ The law of conservation and transf
Schrodinger's cat
and “ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”
=.
This law consist of two (2) parts:
a)
according to “ The law of conservation (!) energy/mass”
Schroedinger's cat cannot die.
b)
according to “ The law of transformation (!) energy/mass”
Schroedinger's cat
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefor
Euler Identity within a new quantum theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_XZGOGvuBlI&feature=endscreen
==.
On Feb 12, 7:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:
> How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
> ==.
> Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
> I want throw light
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since
On Feb 12, 8:41 am, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 10:15 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
> > the universe '
> > Brent
>
> > It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
>
> No, it means it's undefined - there's no uniq
On 2/11/2013 10:15 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
the universe '
Brent
It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
No, it means it's undefined - there's no unique way to add up the energy from different
parts of a curve
How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
==.
Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
I want throw light on this Vacuum.
Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K :
a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K,
b) QED theory because this theory explain interaction
photon / ele
' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
the universe '
Brent
It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because that
more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
How to understand vacuum's infini
On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?
Brent-
.
Science made great
On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can'
On 11 Feb 2013, at 11:51, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
If comp is true, there is no "Physical Universe", only a physical
reality, which belongs to the epi
On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?
Brent-
.
Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but
John,
On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:14, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)
In the context (you might quote it, btw), by "the real universe" I
meant what remains real when we grasp that there is no assumed, or
primary, physica
I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
=
On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:
> How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> =.
> In his "
On 2/10/2013 12:14 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)
then you line up a series of "IF"-s. What about IF NOT?
You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human logic (prime #s,
2+2=4, etc.) which may
On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?
Brent-
.
Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We stil
Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)
then you line up a series of "IF"-s. What about IF NOT?
You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human logic
(prime #s, 2+2=4, etc.) which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural
Logic
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?
Brent-
.
Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is
On 10 Feb 2013, at 07:46, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
You should always be clear if you talk about the physical universe
(that we can observe), and the real universe, that we are searching.
If you assume that the Universe = the physical un
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?
>
Brent-
.
Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum
On 2/9/2013 10:46 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
to this absolute
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
pursuit in
On 07 Feb 2013, at 08:03, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?
No, we don’t know what Vacuum is.
From below I see that you meant here the "physical vacuum".
If comp is correct the physical vacuum is the statistical sum on all
(arithmetical) computations. Why
Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?
No, we don’t know what Vacuum is.
1
Paul Dirac wrote:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
descri
Alice in Quantumland
an allegory of Quantum Physics
(Below is a sample from the publisher's blurb)
This story is physics told through a fantasy allegory.
Alice falls through the screen of her television set and finds herself
in Quantumland. This is a place where she encounters unusual
charac
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
To say that nature is absurd is to say that our current
understanding of nature --materialism-- is wrong.
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-02-05, 06:43:51
Subject: Science is a religion by
On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that c
Alice in Quantumland
=.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd
from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.
/ QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
page. 10. by R. Feynman /
‘
On 02 Feb 2013, at 07:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi socr...@bezeqint.net
Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics,
it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
If we underst
On Monday, February 4, 2013 10:22:50 AM UTC-5, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
> =.
> Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
>
I think that in the final analysis, consciousness has no business being in
the brain, but the br
On 2/4/2013 10:22 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that
Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .’
/ Book
On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> > Hi socr...@bezeqint.net
>
> > Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics,
> > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
>
> If we understand that physics is actually experience, then
ce, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
could it really be otherwise?
Craig
>
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* socr...@bezeqint.net
> *Receiver:* Everything List
> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 22:06:54
> *Subject:* Re: Sc
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics,
it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-30, 22:06:54
Subject: Re: Science is a religion
On 30 Jan 2013, at 13:40, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
About Infinity. / My opinion /
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what
Biology- - Evolutionary biology - - Physics- - Biophysics -
Quantum biology - Evolutionary biophysics on quantomolecular level.
( ! ? )
==.
On Jan 31, 4:06 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:
> Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
>
> Disappearing in one place and reappe
Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another.
Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly
faster than the speed of light.
This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still
laboratories
studying th
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
God is life, consciousness and intelligence, not
a triangle with three sides.
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-29, 02:33:15
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
.Everybody
Hi Stephen P. King
The subjective universe is like the tao.
Whatever is said about the tao is not the tao.
So not to worry.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-29, 15:44:06
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself
About Infinity. / My opinion /
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what infinity is.
The concept of infinite / eternal means nothi
On 1/29/2013 8:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
.Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
#
There were
" The most incomprehensible thing about the world is
that it is comprehensible."
/ Albert Einstein /
On Jan 29, 2:49 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>
> wrote:
> > .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
> If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
> / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
> #
> There were people who said ‘God ‘ and thought ab
.Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
#
There were people who said ‘God ‘ and thought about Zeus.
There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
If p
What are we talking about ?
==
a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are,
b) we don’t know what electron is,
c) we don't know what water is,
d) we don't know what entropy is,
e) we don’t know what inertia is . . . . .etc
.
a)
The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approxi
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
> like?"
> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
> strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
> . . .
> So string theory IS
But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
Do you advise me to believe in you
Something that intrigues me is that arithmetics does not seem to exist
in the primordial singularity that spawned the 14d Metaverse nor in
any singularities that that spawned 12d universes because the quantum
fields in the singularities are not discrete.
In order to get a discrete structure capabl
I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.
What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
measurement and subject to belief.
For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
bo
Belief . . . from history of physics.
=.
Many years Max Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of
Hi meekerdb
You have faith that what Mencken said is true, am I not correct ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 18:31:10
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their
philosophy of physics
‘
I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Because the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plan.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
1. Vacuu
0 years of thinking about that we call ‘philosophy of physics
‘
I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Because the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plan.
=.
On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:20, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Physics and Metaphysics.
John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .
John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safe
Physics and Metaphysics.
John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .
John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Be
On 14 Jan 2013, at 20:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
I will try to understand situation from today fashion physical point
of view.
Good luck. I think this is wrong at the start. Provably so if brain
works like digital machine at some description level.
=.
Let us say that Plato's wor
I will try to understand situation from today fashion physical point
of view.
=.
Let us say that Plato's world of ideas is a dark mass
( because nobody knows that their are).
And Leibniz monadas and Kant's things-in- themselves are
quantum particles ( because nobody knows their physical parameter
On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
The Seven Hermetic Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
=.
1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
2. As above, so below.
3. From potential to active existence.
4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
5. Everything i
the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -----
> From: socra...@bezeqint.net
> Receiver: Everything List
> Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32
> Subject: Science is a religion by itself.
>
> The Seven Hermetic Principleshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCp
llowing content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32
Subject: Science is a religion by itself.
The Seven Hermetic Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
=.
1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
2. As above, so below.
3. Fr
The Seven Hermetic Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
=.
1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
2. As above, so below.
3. From potential to active existence.
4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
6. Everything in the Univers
On 1/11/2013 11:35 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’.
/ By Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpr
Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’.
/ By Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so
Nice figments!
Brent and Socratus and others: I will happily e-mail my essay on Science -
Religion (the '-' stands for '=')- of 2000 upon request. The original
URL-owner went out of business, I do have the copy.
JM
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:24 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
socra...@bezeqint.net> wro
On Jan 11, 7:24 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:
> Nobody has "seen" primary matter,
> but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in
> our existence.
> ===.
>
> What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ?
> It is 'quantum virtual particles'
Nobody has "seen" primary matter,
but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in
our existence.
===.
What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ?
It is 'quantum virtual particles' and ' cosmic dark mass and
energy'
The problem is that nobody exp
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> In beginning was Word.
> And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K.
soc,
You may be ripe to believe in string consciousness
for its ontological basis is a cubic lattice
of Calabi-Yau compact manifolds
at absolute zero, T=0K,
fro
On 08 Jan 2013, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough wrote:
> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He
is incapable
Quantum electrodynamics + Biology = Who am I ?
==.
Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and
On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Roger Clough" wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
> Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was.
>
> >
> Brent
To have logical mind is very good.
But our brain sometime works unconscious.
=.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ev
On Jan 8, 1:48 am, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:
>
> > > Consider God, a word for Mind
>
> > OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
>
> > I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that i
On Jan 7, 7:53 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough wrote:
>
> > Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
>
> Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is
> incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you
> but God can not. That s
On Jan 7, 6:42 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
> > wrote:
> > Science is a religion by itself. Why?
> > Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
> > only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
>
> The
On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of
proving His
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian
> "theory".
>
Conservative Christianity is deplorable in a great number of ways but it is
superior to liberal theology in one important regard, it states that it
might be a good idea if
eiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:56:46
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough wrote:
> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough wrote:
> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is
incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence
to you
I doubt this. You can
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote:
> Consider God, a word for Mind
OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but
not the
Time: 2013-01-07, 19:48:04
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote:
> Consider God, a word for Mind
OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that
On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:
> Consider God, a word for Mind
OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many
people are willing to abandon the id
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to
do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?
John K Clark
"Any eternal God would be so bored after one eternity tha
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
