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 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Subject | The Speed of Thought |
| Message-ID | <58FBA2D2.5616@ix.netcom.com> |
The Speed of Thought I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 04:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnofof8b.78r.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #416894 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Speed of Thought Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm or more. > I don't think We know. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-22 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FC3603.577F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #416955 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Speed of Thought > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm > or more. > > > I don't think > > We know. > > Ned The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it can move. Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure how fast thought can move. Let me give you a simple example.. Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it to a letter carrier, the pony express. A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it. What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster. How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the different modes of..transportation. Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which also contain...information. What is The Speed of Thought? I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 14:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <58fc9ce1$0$1811$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #416956 |
On 23.04.17 7:05, The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: >> >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> The Speed of Thought >> >> Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm >> or more. >> >>> I don't think >> >> We know. >> >> Ned > > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it can move. > > > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure how fast thought can move. > > > Let me give you a simple example.. > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it to a letter carrier, the pony express. > > A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it. > > > What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster. > > How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the different modes of..transportation. > > > Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which also contain...information. > > > What is The Speed of Thought? > > > I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". > Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light, however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oov91u.G85@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #416962 |
In article <58fc9ce1$0$1811$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl>, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >On 23.04.17 7:05, The Starmaker wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>> The Speed of Thought >>> >>> Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm >>> or more. >>> >>>> I don't think >>> >>> We know. >>> >>> Ned >> >> >> The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it >can move. >> >> >> Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure >how fast thought can move. >> >> >> Let me give you a simple example.. >> >> Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it >to a letter carrier, the pony express. >> >> A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your >great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it. >> >> >> What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster. >> >> How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the >different modes of..transportation. >> >> >> Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which >also contain...information. >> >> >> What is The Speed of Thought? >> >> >> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >> >Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical >impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light, >however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some >myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph). That was what I thought when I first saw this Subject line. I actually knew that number at some point, 'cause I asked my boss the scientist and he told me, and I put it into _A Point of Honor,_ at the point where the programmer tells the swordswoman that, as you say, nerve impulses travel more slowly than electrical impulses, so that (contrary to popular belief) she *can't* tell whether she's in a VR on a local machine or a remote one. Thank you for providing the data again, so I didn't have to get the book out and try to find it. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 11:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33668d30e271d35098abd5@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #416974 |
In article <oov91u.G85@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > In article <58fc9ce1$0$1811$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl>, > Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: > >On 23.04.17 7:05, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Ned Latham wrote: > >>> > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The Speed of Thought > >>> > >>> Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm > >>> or more. > >>> > >>>> I don't think > >>> > >>> We know. > >>> > >>> Ned > >> > >> > >> The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it > >can move. > >> > >> > >> Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure > >how fast thought can move. > >> > >> > >> Let me give you a simple example.. > >> > >> Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it > >to a letter carrier, the pony express. > >> > >> A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your > >great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it. > >> > >> > >> What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster. > >> > >> How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the > >different modes of..transportation. > >> > >> > >> Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which > >also contain...information. > >> > >> > >> What is The Speed of Thought? > >> > >> > >> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". > >> > >Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity > >Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical > >impulses which are on the order of 50?99% of the speed of light, > >however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some > >myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph). > > That was what I thought when I first saw this Subject line. I > actually knew that number at some point, 'cause I asked my boss > the scientist and he told me, and I put it into _A Point of > Honor,_ at the point where the programmer tells the swordswoman > that, as you say, nerve impulses travel more slowly than > electrical impulses, so that (contrary to popular belief) she > *can't* tell whether she's in a VR on a local machine or a remote > one. That would depend though on how remote "remote" is. Across town, it would be hard to tell. Lag from NY to LA over landline is about the same as the interval between movie frames--some people can see that. Lag from NY to Melbourne would be more like a tenth of second--that's perceptible for most people. Put in a satellite link and it's enough to be annoying in telephone conversations. > > Thank you for providing the data again, so I didn't have to get > the book out and try to find it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oovF88.sDy@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #416977 |
In article <MPG.33668d30e271d35098abd5@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <oov91u.G85@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >> In article <58fc9ce1$0$1811$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl>, >> Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >> >On 23.04.17 7:05, The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Ned Latham wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The Starmaker wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> The Speed of Thought >> >>> >> >>> Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm >> >>> or more. >> >>> >> >>>> I don't think >> >>> >> >>> We know. >> >>> >> >>> Ned >> >> >> >> >> >> The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it >> >can move. >> >> >> >> >> >> Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure >> >how fast thought can move. >> >> >> >> >> >> Let me give you a simple example.. >> >> >> >> Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it >> >to a letter carrier, the pony express. >> >> >> >> A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your >> >great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it. >> >> >> >> >> >> What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster. >> >> >> >> How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the >> >different modes of..transportation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which >> >also contain...information. >> >> >> >> >> >> What is The Speed of Thought? >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >> >> >> >Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >> >Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical >> >impulses which are on the order of 50?99% of the speed of light, >> >however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some >> >myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph). >> >> That was what I thought when I first saw this Subject line. I >> actually knew that number at some point, 'cause I asked my boss >> the scientist and he told me, and I put it into _A Point of >> Honor,_ at the point where the programmer tells the swordswoman >> that, as you say, nerve impulses travel more slowly than >> electrical impulses, so that (contrary to popular belief) she >> *can't* tell whether she's in a VR on a local machine or a remote >> one. > >That would depend though on how remote "remote" is. Across town, it would >be hard to tell. Lag from NY to LA over landline is about the same as the >interval between movie frames--some people can see that. Lag from NY to >Melbourne would be more like a tenth of second--that's perceptible for most >people. Put in a satellite link and it's enough to be annoying in >telephone conversations. Well, the distance in the specific context is from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to San Jose, California. But the story is set somewhere-in-the-moderately-near-future (Florida is being evacuated because of sea level rise, hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles are rare antiques, and full-sensory VR is available at a highish price), so maybe their communication speeds have improved. Note that I am not an EECS major, but my husband is. Or was, since he's retired. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 23:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33673700d3d9a498abde@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #416986 |
In article <oovF88.sDy@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > In article <MPG.33668d30e271d35098abd5@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >In article <oov91u.G85@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> > >> In article <58fc9ce1$0$1811$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl>, > >> Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: > >> >On 23.04.17 7:05, The Starmaker wrote: > >> >> Ned Latham wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> The Starmaker wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The Speed of Thought > >> >>> > >> >>> Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage 80 wpm > >> >>> or more. > >> >>> > >> >>>> I don't think > >> >>> > >> >>> We know. > >> >>> > >> >>> Ned > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The speed of light is not about how fast it can type...but how fast it > >> >can move. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can measure > >> >how fast thought can move. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Let me give you a simple example.. > >> >> > >> >> Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and give it > >> >to a letter carrier, the pony express. > >> >> > >> >> A 'letter carrier' is a person who carries a letter containg your > >> >great great grandmother thoughts , jumps on a pony and delivers it. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> What is the speed of thought? ....today, might be a little faster. > >> >> > >> >> How long did it take 'this thought' to reach You? And add all the > >> >different modes of..transportation. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Also add galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light which > >> >also contain...information. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> What is The Speed of Thought? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". > >> >> > >> >Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia > >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity > >> >Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical > >> >impulses which are on the order of 50?99% of the speed of light, > >> >however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some > >> >myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph). > >> > >> That was what I thought when I first saw this Subject line. I > >> actually knew that number at some point, 'cause I asked my boss > >> the scientist and he told me, and I put it into _A Point of > >> Honor,_ at the point where the programmer tells the swordswoman > >> that, as you say, nerve impulses travel more slowly than > >> electrical impulses, so that (contrary to popular belief) she > >> *can't* tell whether she's in a VR on a local machine or a remote > >> one. > > > >That would depend though on how remote "remote" is. Across town, it would > >be hard to tell. Lag from NY to LA over landline is about the same as the > >interval between movie frames--some people can see that. Lag from NY to > >Melbourne would be more like a tenth of second--that's perceptible for most > >people. Put in a satellite link and it's enough to be annoying in > >telephone conversations. > > Well, the distance in the specific context is from Philadelphia, > Pennsylvania, to San Jose, California. But the story is set > somewhere-in-the-moderately-near-future (Florida is being > evacuated because of sea level rise, hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles > are rare antiques, and full-sensory VR is available at a highish > price), so maybe their communication speeds have improved. They would have to discover hyperspace or some such to improve the communication speeds. Light is fast, it is not instantaneous. > Note > that I am not an EECS major, but my husband is. Or was, since > he's retired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 10:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <em427qF9gktU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #416962 |
Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >> >Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical >impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light, >however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some >myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph). There are some issues with running giraffes. Apparently the decision on where to place each foot has to be made some astonishingly long time before the foot actually goes down. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 11:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA760AA24A62A5melchizedek@216.166.97.131> |
| In reply to | #416982 |
Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote in news:em427qF9gktU2@mid.individual.net: > Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: > > >>> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >>> >>Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >>Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical >>impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light, >>however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some >>myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 >>mph). > > There are some issues with running giraffes. Apparently the decision > on where to place each foot has to be made some astonishingly long > time before the foot actually goes down. This is an issue for humans too. From the relevant XKCD 'What if': https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/ "Throwing is hard. In order to deliver a baseball to a batter, a pitcher has to release the ball at exactly the right point in the throw. A timing error of half a millisecond in either direction is enough to cause the ball to miss the strike zone.[5] To put that in perspective, it takes about five milliseconds for the fastest nerve impulse to travel the length of the arm.[6] That means that when your arm is still rotating toward the correct position, the signal to release the ball is already at your wrist. In terms of timing, this is like a drummer dropping a drumstick from the 10th story and hitting a drum on the ground on the correct beat." [This is in the context of noting that the human abliity throw things hard and accurately is unparalleled in the animal kingdom.] pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oovqLM.1GH9@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #416984 |
In article <XnsA760AA24A62A5melchizedek@216.166.97.131>, Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote: >Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote in >news:em427qF9gktU2@mid.individual.net: > >> Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >> >> >>>> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >>>> >>>Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >>>Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical >>>impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light, >>>however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some >>>myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 >>>mph). >> >> There are some issues with running giraffes. Apparently the decision >> on where to place each foot has to be made some astonishingly long >> time before the foot actually goes down. > >This is an issue for humans too. From the relevant XKCD 'What if': > >https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/ > >"Throwing is hard. In order to deliver a baseball to a batter, a pitcher >has to release the ball at exactly the right point in the throw. A timing >error of half a millisecond in either direction is enough to cause the >ball to miss the strike zone.[5] > >To put that in perspective, it takes about five milliseconds for the >fastest nerve impulse to travel the length of the arm.[6] That means that >when your arm is still rotating toward the correct position, the signal >to release the ball is already at your wrist. In terms of timing, this is >like a drummer dropping a drumstick from the 10th story and hitting a >drum on the ground on the correct beat." > >[This is in the context of noting that the human abliity throw things >hard and accurately is unparalleled in the animal kingdom.] Is it really? I've heard some wicked things about the throwing abilities of some of our primate relatives. :) -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 19:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA76199038C89melchizedek@216.166.97.131> |
| In reply to | #417008 |
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in news:oovqLM.1GH9@kithrup.com: > In article <XnsA760AA24A62A5melchizedek@216.166.97.131>, > Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote: >>Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote in >>news:em427qF9gktU2@mid.individual.net: >> >>> Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >>>>> >>>>Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >>>>Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of >>>>electrical impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of >>>>light, however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with >>>>some myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h >>>>or 275 mph). >>> >>> There are some issues with running giraffes. Apparently the >>> decision on where to place each foot has to be made some >>> astonishingly long time before the foot actually goes down. >> >>This is an issue for humans too. From the relevant XKCD 'What if': >> >>https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/ >> >>"Throwing is hard. In order to deliver a baseball to a batter, a >>pitcher has to release the ball at exactly the right point in the >>throw. A timing error of half a millisecond in either direction is >>enough to cause the ball to miss the strike zone.[5] >> >>To put that in perspective, it takes about five milliseconds for the >>fastest nerve impulse to travel the length of the arm.[6] That means >>that when your arm is still rotating toward the correct position, the >>signal to release the ball is already at your wrist. In terms of >>timing, this is like a drummer dropping a drumstick from the 10th >>story and hitting a drum on the ground on the correct beat." >> >>[This is in the context of noting that the human abliity throw things >>hard and accurately is unparalleled in the animal kingdom.] > > Is it really? I've heard some wicked things about the throwing > abilities of some of our primate relatives. :) Their aim and power suck. While some animals can spit accurately (archerfish, some cobras), nothing beside humans can pick up a rock and throw it to kill or disable a prey animal. BTW, Munroe's pitcher description is a slight overstatement; the muscles which control the fingers are in the forearm. His point remains, however. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oovExM.rv2@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #416982 |
In article <em427qF9gktU2@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: > > >>> I think it's fair to say it's a little more than..."80 wpm". >>> >>Nerve conduction velocity - Wikipedia >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_conduction_velocity >>Nerve impulses are extremely slow compared to the speed of electrical >>impulses which are on the order of 50–99% of the speed of light, >>however, very fast compared to the speed of blood flow, with some >>myelinated neurons conducting at speeds up to 120 m/s (432 km/h or 275 mph). > >There are some issues with running giraffes. Apparently the decision >on where to place each foot has to be made some astonishingly long >time before the foot actually goes down. Perhaps the decision is made somewhere in the spinal column, rather than in the brain? Like the spinal reflex that makes one jerk her hand away from a hot iron before her brain notices it. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnofp7s3.ibt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #416956 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Speed of Thought > > > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage > > 80 wpm or more. > > > > > I don't think > > > > We know. > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type... Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs. > but how fast it can move. If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause to acceot it. > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can > measure how fast thought can move. No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it. > Let me give you a simple example.. > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and Wrong. No-one has ever done that. ----further baseless speculation snipped---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FD07F7.4D9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #416963 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Speed of Thought > > > > > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage > > > 80 wpm or more. > > > > > > > I don't think > > > > > > We know. > > > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type... > > Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs. > > > but how fast it can move. > > If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other > place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause > to acceot it. > > > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can > > measure how fast thought can move. > > No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis > and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it. > > > Let me give you a simple example.. > > > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and > > Wrong. No-one has ever done that. > > ----further baseless speculation snipped---- > > Ned They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnofqeng.36m.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417005 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Speed of Thought > > > > > > > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage > > > > 80 wpm or more. > > > > > > > > > I don't think > > > > > > > > We know. > > > > > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type... > > > > Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs. > > > > > but how fast it can move. > > > > If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other > > place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause > > to acceot it. > > > > > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can > > > measure how fast thought can move. > > > > No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis > > and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it. > > > > > Let me give you a simple example.. > > > > > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and > > > > Wrong. No-one has ever done that. > > > > ----further baseless speculation snipped---- > > They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought? Nope. It's a result of thought. Similarly, but not the same, great great grandma's letter is a result of action motivated by thought. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FD7BC7.5C6C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417024 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Speed of Thought > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage > > > > > 80 wpm or more. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think > > > > > > > > > > We know. > > > > > > > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type... > > > > > > Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs. > > > > > > > but how fast it can move. > > > > > > If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other > > > place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause > > > to acceot it. > > > > > > > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can > > > > measure how fast thought can move. > > > > > > No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis > > > and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it. > > > > > > > Let me give you a simple example.. > > > > > > > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and > > > > > > Wrong. No-one has ever done that. > > > > > > ----further baseless speculation snipped---- > > > > They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought? > > Nope. It's a result of thought. Similarly, but not the same, great > great grandma's letter is a result of action motivated by thought. > > Ned Information...'wishes' to be free. The thought action is to free itself, by any means necessary... by any mode of transportation, whether it's a pony, a telephone..pass the speed of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 22:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58FD8F73.7FCE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417034 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Speed of Thought > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage > > > > > > 80 wpm or more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think > > > > > > > > > > > > We know. > > > > > > > > > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type... > > > > > > > > Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs. > > > > > > > > > but how fast it can move. > > > > > > > > If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other > > > > place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause > > > > to acceot it. > > > > > > > > > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can > > > > > measure how fast thought can move. > > > > > > > > No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis > > > > and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it. > > > > > > > > > Let me give you a simple example.. > > > > > > > > > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and > > > > > > > > Wrong. No-one has ever done that. > > > > > > > > ----further baseless speculation snipped---- > > > > > > They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought? > > > > Nope. It's a result of thought. Similarly, but not the same, great > > great grandma's letter is a result of action motivated by thought. > > > > Ned > > Information...'wishes' to be free. > > The thought action is to free itself, by any means necessary... > > by any mode of transportation, whether it's a pony, a telephone..pass > the speed of light. But maybe I went a little to fast for yous with a pony express...i shoulda started with...sending thoughts with smoke signals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 06:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnofr58c.csl.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417038 |
The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Speed of Thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on the indiviual. Most people should be able to manage > > > > > > > 80 wpm or more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We know. > > > > > > > > > > > > The speed of light is not about how fast it can type... > > > > > > > > > > Neither is what I said. wpm is how fast *thought* occurs. > > > > > > > > > > > but how fast it can move. > > > > > > > > > > If you mean thought moves from the thinker's head to some other > > > > > place, you'd best state your hypothesis clearly, then show cause > > > > > to acceot it. > > > > > > > > > > > Once you understand 'thought' as information... then you can > > > > > > measure how fast thought can move. > > > > > > > > > > No. Once you understand that you have to state a clear hypothesis > > > > > and show cause to accept it, then you can start to discuss it. > > > > > > > > > > > Let me give you a simple example.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your great great grandmother puts her thoughts in a letter and > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. No-one has ever done that. > > > > > > > > They say the universe is...mathematical, isn't math...thought? > > > > > > Nope. It's a result of thought. Similarly, but not the same, great > > > great grandma's letter is a result of action motivated by thought. > > > > Information...'wishes' to be free. Rubbish. Information does not wish. > But maybe I went a little to fast for yous with a pony express...i Nah. You went a little lunatic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 16:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <em5lr6FiqhgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #416894 |
On 23/04/2017 4:37 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > The Speed of Thought > > > I don't think you girls have even begun to measure it correctly. > I don't think you've even begun to define it correctly. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web