Re: Is physics really a matter of belief?
From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/24/04
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: Quantum Gravity Hypothesis"
- Previous message: erich: "Hydrogen-boron Fusion Update"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Is physics really a matter of belief?"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: Is physics really a matter of belief?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Nov 2004 22:29:16 -0800
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<r4zod.379816$wV.223016@attbi_s54>...
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
> >
> > Frames of reference are human constructs whereby situations are too
> > complex to be understood or calculated on (3 or more moving bodies),
> > so a little window (FoR) is selected, and all else is ignored.
> > That baseball? If, according to the reality of nature in the motion of
> > the universe, the earth is moving at >G, then the ball still may have
> > constant positive (or negative) velocity at all times.
> >
>
> Illucid
It would read better
"Frames of reference are human constructs wherein situations too complex etc"
Jim G' (I'm in motion here :-) )
c'=c+v
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: Quantum Gravity Hypothesis"
- Previous message: erich: "Hydrogen-boron Fusion Update"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Is physics really a matter of belief?"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: Is physics really a matter of belief?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|