Re: force
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Nov 2005 13:20:15 -0800
significant zero wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1131135262.529545.321080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | significant zero wrote:
> | > | > sue wrote
> | > |
> | > | Sigh...
> | > | Children !!!
> | > | Charles, Camilla, Dubya, Browine and Sig z :o)
> | >
> | > I wish.
> | >
> | > | <<Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite
> | > | action-reaction force pairs.>>
> | >
> | > Is that why we have pairs of bolloxs miss ?
> | >
> | > |
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > A field is a condition ( even if it has a pair of bolloxs in it )
> that
> | > can exist on its own and the force that is the product of this
> field
> | > can be considered as a single entity, What we teach our kids today
> no
> | > wonder we are nearly extinct !! (:-)
> |
> | A field is a spatial abstraction. You teach your children that it can
> | exert force when you don't really know the answer to
> | ' why do things fall down instead of up?' .
>
> Because down is slower than up?
>
> |
> | The princple is much the same as what you tell childeren when
> | they ask where babies come from. ;-)
>
> Is it ? do show. feeling a bit better at the moment perhaps you can
> tell (:-) this broadband ain't half quick and once you have bitten the
> bullet of the monthly fees its very convenient but for the fact that I
> have to read and write news ( if I want it speel (:{) checked) with
> outlook express but post it in goggle.
Opera is now free but I can't decide if I like it better than Outlook.
>
> |
> | << So, despite Einstein's hopes, general relativity
> | does not in any way explain or obviate the principle
> | of inertia. Granted, if the field equations didn't
> | include the trace term (so that the covariant divergence
> | didn't vanish), the resulting theory would have many
> | problems and be subject to many objections, but no one
> | disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely
> | well-founded in observation. It is an extremely
> | well-justified postulate - but it is still a postulate.
> | General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does
> | it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal
> | theories on the principle of inertia and the associated
> | coordinate systems. >>
> | http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm
> |
> | Babies and bolloxs really come from here:
> | http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
> |
> | But don't tell the children or it'll spoil the H. G. Wells fable. :o)
> |
> || Sue...
> |
>
> I never knew my bolloxs were so clever and they tell me that inertia is
> a poorly understood effect and can be very misleading if applied to
> coordinate systems, perhaps.(-:)
Simply remember that water pressure squirts the back half of a fish
forward just the same as it squirts the front half backward. It is the
turbulence that works up its appitite. :o)
Sue...
>
> | >
> | > sig z
> |
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: force
- From: significant zero
- Re: force
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Falling in curves
- Next by Date: Re: Direct TWLS Measurement
- Previous by thread: Re: force
- Next by thread: Re: force
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
