Re: To Androcles
- From: "The Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:42:28 GMT
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149460782.670390.241960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1149293191.547550.33190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissädon't,
news:1149205531.866032.136110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1149201741.550302.56570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
between a
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Speaking about accelerating motions, isn't there any difference
Do you disagree with any of the statements I made? (PD)ball in the air and a ball on the ground?
Henry Haapalainen
Lots of them.
In the former, the earth and the ball are accelerating toward each
other.
In the former, both of them are in free fall.
In the former, there is one dominant fundamental interaction
between
the two; in the latter, there is at least one more.
PD
Didn't I say it clear enough. (HH)
No, I guess you didn't. What statements do you disagree with?
PD
I disagree with all you wrote. You have misunderstood everything, you
at least, understand, what free fall means. (HH)
Really?
Let's take the last one, just to be concrete. I said in the former
there is one dominant fundamental interaction occurring between the
ball and the earth. That interaction is gravity, and it causes the two
to eventually approach each other. In the case of a ball now resting on
the ground, there is an additional interaction, which is fundamentally
electromagnetic, and this is why the two do not continue to approach
each other. I can easily test for this interaction by supplying an
instrument with a gauge that measures how much of that interaction it
has to supply -- a bathroom scale. In the former case, the bathroom
scale reads zero. In the latter case, the bathroom scale reads two
pounds. There is clearly a difference.
Now, what corrections would you have to the above?
PD
Your level of understanding physics is really low. (HH)
I see your understanding of physics is high enough that when asked to
make corrections to a physical explanation, you simply resort to a
personal slam.
PD
You'd never do that, would you?
Androcles
.
- References:
- Re: To Androcles
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: To Androcles
- From: PD
- Re: To Androcles
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: To Androcles
- From: PD
- Re: To Androcles
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: To Androcles
- From: PD
- Re: To Androcles
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: To Androcles
- From: PD
- Re: To Androcles
- Prev by Date: Re: Cahill on the speed of light (& Einstein)
- Next by Date: Re: THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT PROBLEM
- Previous by thread: Re: To Androcles
- Next by thread: Re: To Androcles
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|