Re: Gravity
- From: "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:32:56 GMT
"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123318261.18931.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%pTIe.72831$oJ.29812@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:1123255006.164364.289640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > Would you like roquefort or thousand island dressing with that
> | > character salad?
> |
> | I thought about responding but could not make out what it was getting
> at.
> | Glad someone else agrees.
> |
> | Thanks
> | Bill
> |
> | >
> | > PD
> | >
>
> That because it was not trying to get *at* anything Bill
How true, how very true.
> it is just an
> attempt to clarify a state of confusion, on who's part it remains to be
> seen.
It is quite obvious who is confused and despite many invitations to correct
that confusion refuses to.
Bill
>
> --
> Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
> unbound field effects
> http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
> Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p
> or
> (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gravity
- From: Significant Zero
- Re: Gravity
- References:
- Gravity
- From: Significant Zero
- Re: Gravity
- From: PD
- Re: Gravity
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Gravity
- From: Significant Zero
- Gravity
- Prev by Date: Re: Falling photons http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
- Next by Date: Re: Twin paradox invalidated
- Previous by thread: Re: Gravity
- Next by thread: Re: Gravity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
