Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590110 > unrolled thread

Small enough- to be zero?

Started byjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
First post2016-07-20 11:11 -0700
Last post2016-07-23 17:20 -0400
Articles 7 on this page of 47 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:11 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:18 -0500
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-20 12:57 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 16:30 -0500
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:45 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:06 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:16 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:42 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:59 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:58 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:32 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:03 -0700
                  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 20:06 -0500
                  Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:20 +0000
                    Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:51 -0700
                      Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 08:25 -0700
                        Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:36 -0400
                          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-22 14:05 -0700
                            Re: Small enough- to be zero? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-22 14:52 -0700
                      Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:25 +0000
                        Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:25 -0700
                          Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 00:48 +0000
                      haxacontaDELTAhedronic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:47 -0700
                        stab a guess (or an i.s.i.s): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:52 -0700
                          stab a guess (or those flamethrowers): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:27 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:55 -0400
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:04 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:37 -0400
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:44 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:33 -0400
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 02:08 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Eduardo J. Berringer" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-07-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-24 12:48 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:39 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 15:21 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:49 -0400
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-22 12:04 +1000
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-21 23:54 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-23 11:57 +1000
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:01 -0400
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 10:52 +1000
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 21:25 -0400
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:09 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:31 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:20 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#590414

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-07-23 11:57 +1000
Message-ID<dvg17pF3r5uU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#590285
On 22/07/2016 4:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, john wrote:
>>> Some posters, here, think that
>>> at small enough scales, there
>>> are no more particles. Just energy
>>> of some sort, I suppose.
>>> I'm guessing these are the same
>>> ones who deny that organization
>>> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
>>> And, probably, the same ones
>>> who think that Humans are a total fluke
>>> on our Earth alone, and chances
>>> of it happening on some other planet
>>> are nil to none. And probably, also,
>>> total atheists.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
>>> they're in pattern-denial
>>>
>>
>> We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood  of intelligent
>> life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed
>> life at all) is that it's possible.
>
>
> No, is that it's impossible.

Unless you think that life on Earth is not intelligent, then you know 
that intelligent life is possible, because it exists on Earth.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590483

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2016-07-23 17:01 -0400
Message-ID<5793db41$0$17612$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#590414
On 7/22/2016 9:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/07/2016 4:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, john wrote:
>>>> Some posters, here, think that
>>>> at small enough scales, there
>>>> are no more particles. Just energy
>>>> of some sort, I suppose.
>>>> I'm guessing these are the same
>>>> ones who deny that organization
>>>> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
>>>> And, probably, the same ones
>>>> who think that Humans are a total fluke
>>>> on our Earth alone, and chances
>>>> of it happening on some other planet
>>>> are nil to none. And probably, also,
>>>> total atheists.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
>>>> they're in pattern-denial
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood  of intelligent
>>> life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed
>>> life at all) is that it's possible.
>>
>>
>> No, is that it's impossible.
>
> Unless you think that life on Earth is not intelligent, then you know
> that intelligent life is possible, because it exists on Earth.
>
> Sylvia.
>
I've seen little evidence of intelligent life on earth. ESPECIALLY on 
the INTERNET!

Say you were an alien life form and the posts of STarfaker and HVAC were 
all you ever saw. What possible conclusion could you draw?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590525

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-07-24 10:52 +1000
Message-ID<dvihpoFm3dvU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#590483
On 24/07/2016 7:01 AM, benj wrote:
> On 7/22/2016 9:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22/07/2016 4:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, john wrote:
>>>>> Some posters, here, think that
>>>>> at small enough scales, there
>>>>> are no more particles. Just energy
>>>>> of some sort, I suppose.
>>>>> I'm guessing these are the same
>>>>> ones who deny that organization
>>>>> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
>>>>> And, probably, the same ones
>>>>> who think that Humans are a total fluke
>>>>> on our Earth alone, and chances
>>>>> of it happening on some other planet
>>>>> are nil to none. And probably, also,
>>>>> total atheists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
>>>>> they're in pattern-denial
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood  of
>>>> intelligent
>>>> life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed
>>>> life at all) is that it's possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, is that it's impossible.
>>
>> Unless you think that life on Earth is not intelligent, then you know
>> that intelligent life is possible, because it exists on Earth.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
> I've seen little evidence of intelligent life on earth. ESPECIALLY on
> the INTERNET!
>
> Say you were an alien life form and the posts of STarfaker and HVAC were
> all you ever saw. What possible conclusion could you draw?

That there was something capable of language, using some kind of 
technology to send, or generate, messages.

One may not think much of their contributions, but they're still 
evidence of intelligent life.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590531

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2016-07-23 21:25 -0400
Message-ID<5794191d$0$20007$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#590525
On 7/23/2016 8:52 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24/07/2016 7:01 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 7/22/2016 9:57 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2016 4:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, john wrote:
>>>>>> Some posters, here, think that
>>>>>> at small enough scales, there
>>>>>> are no more particles. Just energy
>>>>>> of some sort, I suppose.
>>>>>> I'm guessing these are the same
>>>>>> ones who deny that organization
>>>>>> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
>>>>>> And, probably, the same ones
>>>>>> who think that Humans are a total fluke
>>>>>> on our Earth alone, and chances
>>>>>> of it happening on some other planet
>>>>>> are nil to none. And probably, also,
>>>>>> total atheists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
>>>>>> they're in pattern-denial
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood  of
>>>>> intelligent
>>>>> life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed
>>>>> life at all) is that it's possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, is that it's impossible.
>>>
>>> Unless you think that life on Earth is not intelligent, then you know
>>> that intelligent life is possible, because it exists on Earth.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>> I've seen little evidence of intelligent life on earth. ESPECIALLY on
>> the INTERNET!
>>
>> Say you were an alien life form and the posts of STarfaker and HVAC were
>> all you ever saw. What possible conclusion could you draw?
>
> That there was something capable of language, using some kind of
> technology to send, or generate, messages.
>
> One may not think much of their contributions, but they're still
> evidence of intelligent life.
>
> Sylvia.

Which brings up the important point of carefully defining what exactly 
we mean by "intelligent life". For example chimps and other animals 
communicate using various kinds of technology, maybe not the same as 
ours but works nevertheless. So is that sufficient to claim 
"intelligence"? I suggest that more is required. For example two 
computers communicate using a language and some form of technology, but 
does that make them a form of intelligent life? There needs to be some 
arguments both ways here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590412

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-22 18:09 -0700
Message-ID<11e5b1fc-e0df-40ce-985f-95c8cfdfb23e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#590110
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:11:41 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Some posters, here, think that
> at small enough scales, there
> are no more particles. Just energy
> of some sort, I suppose.
> I'm guessing these are the same
> ones who deny that organization 
> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
> And, probably, the same ones
> who think that Humans are a total fluke
> on our Earth alone, and chances
> of it happening on some other planet
> are nil to none. And probably, also,
> total atheists.
> 
> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
> they're in pattern-denial

Probing Jupiter's inner moons can be done now.They could land scope up 50 pounds and take it back to Earth's lab.It would be done cheaper than those Micky Mouse shuttles that cost billions and billions for 40 years,and just a waste of time and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590478

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-23 13:31 -0700
Message-ID<4fa53267-67e3-488b-9f90-e87b3a111442@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#590110
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:11:41 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Some posters, here, think that
> at small enough scales, there
> are no more particles. Just energy
> of some sort, I suppose.
> I'm guessing these are the same
> ones who deny that organization 
> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
> And, probably, the same ones
> who think that Humans are a total fluke
> on our Earth alone, and chances
> of it happening on some other planet
> are nil to none. And probably, also,
> total atheists.
> 
> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
> they're in pattern-denial

QM Tells us space is always filled with stuff.A vacuum is not empty.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590489

Frombenj <benj@nobody.net>
Date2016-07-23 17:20 -0400
Message-ID<5793dfa7$0$1504$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#590478
On 7/23/2016 4:31 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:11:41 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
>> Some posters, here, think that
>> at small enough scales, there
>> are no more particles. Just energy
>> of some sort, I suppose.
>> I'm guessing these are the same
>> ones who deny that organization
>> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
>> And, probably, the same ones
>> who think that Humans are a total fluke
>> on our Earth alone, and chances
>> of it happening on some other planet
>> are nil to none. And probably, also,
>> total atheists.
>>
>> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
>> they're in pattern-denial
>
> QM Tells us space is always filled with stuff.A vacuum is not empty.TreBert
>
Treebert, space is always filled with aether...except when it is not.

How's that for imperial thinking?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web