Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416894 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 04:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 22:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-04-23 14:23 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 14:17 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:07 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:31 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 23:11 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-04-23 10:14 -0600
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:43 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 20:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 19:56 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 12:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 13:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 23:38 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 21:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 22:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-24 06:02 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-24 16:55 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:09 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 19:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 10:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 12:03 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-25 00:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 17:42 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:25 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 20:49 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:48 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 17:18 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-25 21:53 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 19:39 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-26 04:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-26 18:00 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 03:13 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 04:32 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 14:46 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 11:29 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 16:32 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:22 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 03:39 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:50 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:21 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:59 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:54 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:18 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:40 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 05:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-02 12:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-02 21:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-03 10:21 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-04 13:29 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-06 11:03 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-09 08:00 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:59 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-09 23:23 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 06:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 10:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 11:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-11 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 10:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:49 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 12:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-14 17:39 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 21:51 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-15 05:55 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-15 11:20 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 11:24 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 10:35 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 13:08 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:57 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 15:09 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:40 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:01 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-17 16:07 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:20 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:57 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 04:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 10:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2017-04-24 07:48 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-24 20:36 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 21:14 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 07:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 06:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7d0e838-aa60-457b-bdfc-25bc83ceaca7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419686 |
ScatMaker Scatted <Snip Scattings> Why do you persist in your Scatting here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591C8261.2580@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419687 |
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > ScatMaker Scatted > > <Snip Scattings> > > Why do you persist in your Scatting here? Why do you keep bring up Al Jolson????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64e7a44a-48e8-4c42-8b35-fa1d7ff73366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419751 |
The Scatmaker Scatted David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > - hide quoted text - > ScatMaker Scatted > > <Snip Scattings> > > Why do you persist in your Scatting here? Why do you keep bring up Al Jolson???? scatology [skuh-tol-uh-jee] noun the study of or preoccupation with excrement or obscenity. obscenity, especially words or humor referring to excrement. Scat = Feces
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 16:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohmsj2.as1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419666 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > "duration" is "the length of time" Wrong. It's an interval. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591C8007.256@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419685 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----smip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One cannot measure Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can, howevber, measure duration. > > > > "duration" is "the length of time" > > Wrong. It's an interval. > > ----snip---- noun 1. the length of time http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duration I understand, you cut English classes... ugly teacher, eh? You shuda seen my english teacher, she was hott!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 16:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohmseg.as1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419658 |
The Starmaker wrote: ----snip---- Deduce: > are you inferring I'm incompetent? Tes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591C81F5.4315@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #419683 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > ----snip---- > > Deduce: > > are you inferring I'm incompetent? > > Tes. I didn't write that sentence above..i don't know where you got it from: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics.relativity/8sdHJCDpCV4/Hr-S4fywAwAJ you losing it. game over. dead ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohpes4.e7f.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #419750 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > Deduce: > > > are you inferring I'm incompetent? > > > > Tes. > > I didn't write that sentence above..i don't know where you got it from: Your meswsage <591B3867.232D@ix.netcom.com>. Your quote of the Meriam-Webster definitions of "infer": quote 4, corrected. > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/ > sci.physics.relativity/8sdHJCDpCV4/Hr-S4fywAwAJ Wrong message, moron. Use the Message-ID: that's what it's for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59023B6B.3DA6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417247 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > benj wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the > > transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by > > action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider > > the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the > > speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light. > > There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to > > indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there > > seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that > > transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the > > appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all > > the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts > > occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh. > > Rubbish. > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > accept your postulate. Thought is not a function of the mind...it is a product of the brain. It's information...processed by a brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 17:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5902608b$0$60257$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417435 |
On 4/27/2017 2:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: >> >> benj wrote: >> >> ----snip---- >> >>> You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the >>> transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by >>> action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider >>> the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the >>> speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light. >>> There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to >>> indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there >>> seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that >>> transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the >>> appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all >>> the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts >>> occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh. >> >> Rubbish. >> >> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can >> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to >> accept your postulate. > > > Thought is not a function of the mind...it is a product of the brain. > It's information...processed by a brain. > And the way you know that thought is purely biological is? Ah, Superpowers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5902DE17.75E2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417465 |
benj wrote: > > On 4/27/2017 2:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > >> > >> benj wrote: > >> > >> ----snip---- > >> > >>> You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the > >>> transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by > >>> action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider > >>> the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the > >>> speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light. > >>> There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to > >>> indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there > >>> seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that > >>> transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the > >>> appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all > >>> the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts > >>> occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh. > >> > >> Rubbish. > >> > >> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > >> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > >> accept your postulate. > > > > > > Thought is not a function of the mind...it is a product of the brain. > > It's information...processed by a brain. > > > And the way you know that thought is purely biological is? > > Ah, Superpowers. Thought is physics, not philosophy. You don't put philosophy throught telephone lines..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 12:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog6f1s.6cf.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417525 |
The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > > > accept your postulate. > > > > Thought is not a function of the mind Wrong. > > ...it is a product of the brain. Mind is a product of the brain. Thought is a function of mind. > > It's information...processed by a brain. So are mathematics, the heroin rush, Quo Vadis... Try not to be so simplistic. > Thought is physics, not philosophy. > > You don't put philosophy through telephone lines.. Same goes for physics. What you put through telephone lines is information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59037EB6.52FC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417545 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > > > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > > > > accept your postulate. > > > > > > Thought is not a function of the mind > > Wrong. > > > > ...it is a product of the brain. > > Mind is a product of the brain. Thought is a function of mind. you british have thing thing all backwards... put some ice in your water.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog7kvt.ojp.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417570 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > > > > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > > > > > accept your postulate. > > > > > > > > Thought is not a function of the mind > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > ...it is a product of the brain. > > > > Mind is a product of the brain. Thought is a function of mind. > > you british have thing thing all backwards... I'm not British. > put some ice in your water. Have to melt some ice first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 04:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a72869d-f407-413b-a825-93ef9b8b7690@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417238 |
How many charged particles does it take to emit a photon. How many charged particles does it take to absorb a photon? I would postulate that it takes two. When photons are absorbed, it is common to say (at least as approximation) that a single electron can absorb the radiant energy And the energy goes from the photon to the electron. If a proton is involved, then because it's mass is 1800 times as great as the electron, any acceleration it undergoes will be insignificant. However, in most cases of chemical emission, it is a matter of the electron moving from one valence shell to another valence shell, inside an atom, or conductor, or semiconductor The ratio in mass of the electron, to the mass of particles making up its environment is miniscule. The photon applies an impulse to the electron, Does it apply an equal and opposite impulse to the substrate? If the photon interacts only with the electron, then the absorption of a photon is a single event. But if the photon interacts with both the electron and the substrate like a torque or a strain, then the two impulses mark two simultaneous events. Such an idea seems unproblematic, that two simultaneous events could have the same cause. However, is it possible to generate a photon from two simultaneous events? Or rather, is it a general rule, that photons emit when two accelerations spontaneously and simultaneously occur? Or does the electron spontaneously drop into a lower valence followed later by an equal and opposite impulse on the substrate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59023E44.193D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417290 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > How many charged particles does it take to emit a photon. > How many charged particles does it take to absorb a photon? > > I would postulate that it takes two. > > When photons are absorbed, it is common to say > (at least as approximation) > that a single electron can absorb the radiant energy > And the energy goes from the photon to the electron. > > If a proton is involved, then > because it's mass is 1800 times as great as the electron, > any acceleration it undergoes will be insignificant. > > However, in most cases of chemical emission, > it is a matter of the electron moving > from one valence shell to another valence shell, > inside an atom, or conductor, or semiconductor > The ratio in mass of the electron, > to the mass of particles making up its environment > is miniscule. > > The photon applies an impulse to the electron, > Does it apply an equal and opposite impulse to the substrate? > > If the photon interacts only with the electron, > then the absorption of a photon is a single event. > > But if the photon interacts with both the electron and the substrate > like a torque or a strain, > then the two impulses mark two simultaneous events. > > Such an idea seems unproblematic, > that two simultaneous events could have the same cause. > > However, is it possible to generate a photon from two simultaneous events? > Or rather, is it a general rule, > that photons emit > when two accelerations spontaneously and simultaneously occur? > > Or does the electron spontaneously drop into a lower valence > followed later by an equal and opposite impulse on the substrate? you're not going to get any funding with that kind of talk... you'll get just thrown out into the streets...with Mike!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6983fb9d-197f-4964-8dae-89dbb6614af1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417439 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:54:02 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > How many charged particles does it take to emit a photon. > > How many charged particles does it take to absorb a photon? > > > > I would postulate that it takes two. > > > > When photons are absorbed, it is common to say > > (at least as approximation) > > that a single electron can absorb the radiant energy > > And the energy goes from the photon to the electron. > > > > If a proton is involved, then > > because it's mass is 1800 times as great as the electron, > > any acceleration it undergoes will be insignificant. > > > > However, in most cases of chemical emission, > > it is a matter of the electron moving > > from one valence shell to another valence shell, > > inside an atom, or conductor, or semiconductor > > The ratio in mass of the electron, > > to the mass of particles making up its environment > > is miniscule. > > > > The photon applies an impulse to the electron, > > Does it apply an equal and opposite impulse to the substrate? > > > > If the photon interacts only with the electron, > > then the absorption of a photon is a single event. > > > > But if the photon interacts with both the electron and the substrate > > like a torque or a strain, > > then the two impulses mark two simultaneous events. > > > > Such an idea seems unproblematic, > > that two simultaneous events could have the same cause. > > > > However, is it possible to generate a photon from two simultaneous events? > > Or rather, is it a general rule, > > that photons emit > > when two accelerations spontaneously and simultaneously occur? > > > > Or does the electron spontaneously drop into a lower valence > > followed later by an equal and opposite impulse on the substrate? > > > > you're not going to get any funding with that kind of talk... > > you'll get just thrown out into the streets...with Mike! https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/horse.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 07:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <haprfcllsstivpcm6f12g9gao7d11vkclm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #416894 |
OK, so for galaxy sized brains ( God's ? ), thinking must be extremely slow, since it takes hundreds of thousands of years for just one trip from one side of the brain to the other !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 20:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2215670.GVCavpnEZW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #417048 |
SteveGG amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups without Followup-To: > OK, so for galaxy sized brains ( God's ? ), thinking must be extremely > slow, since it takes hundreds of thousands of years for just one trip > from one side of the brain to the other ! This is strong indication that there no such _gods_ :) F'up2 rec.arts.sf.written -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odlprn$u8i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417103 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > SteveGG amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups without Followup-To: > >> OK, so for galaxy sized brains ( God's ? ), thinking must be extremely >> slow, since it takes hundreds of thousands of years for just one trip >> from one side of the brain to the other ! > > This is strong indication that there no such _gods_ It's not, stupid. It doesn't need to be reach galaxy size. Everything larger than the average, right now, can only be bad. Learn to english, my vociferous friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web