A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old July 19th 04, 08:34 AM
FrediFizzx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:34:27 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
[snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...oactivex. leb

esque-al.net&rnum=4
|
| Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
| factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
| etc.

Sorry, it was magnetic flux that was fixed, not mag field. I see you have
changed it again. Where are you getting your definitions from? Griffiths
is showing magnetic field to be tesla. And mag flux to be weber. And H to
be amp/meter. Jackson agrees with mag flux and calls it a weber. However,
he calls "mag field", H, amp/meter and tesla, B, "mag induction". It would
be nice if there was some consistancy here. ;-( OK, I suppose we should go
with NIST definitions for SI? They agree with Jackson for mag flux as weber
and magnetic field strength as H, amp/meter. But they call B, tesla,
"magnetic flux density" which looks OK to me since it is weber/m^2. So how
about going with the NIST definitions so we can all be on the same page? Is
magnetic intensity the same as mag flux density? You had the conversion for
mag flux density (intensity?) as a tesla; it has to be tesla^-1 in order for
mag flux density to be dimensionless. Corrections made below.

| Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)
|
| Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
| Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
| Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
| Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
| Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
| Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
| Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
| Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
| Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
| Current [i] (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
| Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
| Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
| Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
| Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
| Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
| Magnetic Intensity (Weber/m^2) tesla^-1
Dimensionless **
| Magnetic Flux (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
| Inductance [henry] tesla^-2 kg-m^2
| Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3
|
| ??? A Tesla is, in my clarified system of SI, is dimensionless. It is
has
| dimensions of Weber/m^2 (See: http://www.teslasociety.com/teslaunit.htm).
| A weber is a Volt-second (See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/we/weber.html).

Yes, I know. That is why all the conversion factors are in powers of a
tesla (kg/coul-sec). It is interesting that the conversion for E is 1/tesla
while displacement, D, is tesla. This is strange as the conversion from CGS
to your units for E and D would be the same since they have the same units.
???

| Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
| dimensionless.
|
| The magnetic 'intensity' is a indication of the 'linear' effect that the
| circulation (Curl) has at that point in space. It is definitely
| dimensionless. For example,
|
| F = q(v X B)
|
| Since q is the ean magnitude of the cyclic field flow (Div) pointing
| to (or from) a point and B represents the circulation around that point
| in a plane. We also know that,
|
| F = qE
|
| And then we should discern that we can equate,
|
| E = (v X B)
|
| Does this not tell us that the E field is just a manifestation of a
velocity
| field (v) interacting with B's (Curl) circulation???

Yes, that looks OK.

| What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we did trip
across
| the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition of the
ampere,
| it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm....
|
| I've known that for a very long time. Think about the mechanical example
| of a LHO. Such as,
| __
| 1 /
| ====== (Kg/sec) = --- / Km
| 2pi \/
| \\| __________
| \\| | |
| \\| |\ \ \ | |
| \\|- \ \(K)\ |-| (m) |
| \\| \ \ \| | |
| \\| |__________|
| \\|______________________________
| \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
| Now, define the actual velocity of m wrt to displacement. It certainly
| isn't constant or linear. Thus the momentum of m wrt displacement isn't
| constant (mv) but is a function of the displacement distance m. Work it
| out and solve the above LHO equation... You'll get a definite value for
| kg/sec^2. I think you'll find the exercise interesting.

Akk! I have get this from google because of the font thing again to
decipher your ascii art. Or you can just work it out if you wish.

| Seems like we lose some functionality here.
|
| Not at all IMO...
|
| Magnetic Flux is area?
|
| Yeah, think about that

Well, there seems to be something missing here. That which is producing
this area?

| Electric field is length/time?
|
| Yes, a velocity term. But you do need to understand the concept of
'drift
| velocity' as applied to hydrodynamics.

Ok, explain it again please.

FrediFizzx

  #152  
Old July 19th 04, 11:25 AM
Bilge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:


We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.


This, is your originality???


This discussion isn't original. Why should I be original?

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships


We aren't discussing dimensional relationships. We're discussing
your attempt to turn dimensional relationships into numerology.

[...]
There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.


You're brain dead!


No, I'd only be brain dead if I really believed there was anything
anyone could write that you would dismiss out of hand.

I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't
ask you to write MORE Bilge.


So? I've asked you numerous times to derive something or provide
mathematical definitions for things, and you never do. What makes
you so special?

[...]
I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.


Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.


I hope I met your expectations.

  #153  
Old July 19th 04, 11:25 AM
Bilge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:


We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.


This, is your originality???


This discussion isn't original. Why should I be original?

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships


We aren't discussing dimensional relationships. We're discussing
your attempt to turn dimensional relationships into numerology.

[...]
There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.


You're brain dead!


No, I'd only be brain dead if I really believed there was anything
anyone could write that you would dismiss out of hand.

I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't
ask you to write MORE Bilge.


So? I've asked you numerous times to derive something or provide
mathematical definitions for things, and you never do. What makes
you so special?

[...]
I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.


Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.


I hope I met your expectations.

  #154  
Old July 20th 04, 03:39 AM
Paul Stowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:25:57 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:


We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.


This, is your originality???


This discussion isn't original. Why should I be original?


In fact, NOTHING you've ever posted has been 'original'...

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships


We aren't discussing dimensional relationships. We're discussing
your attempt to turn dimensional relationships into numerology.


You mean YOU aren't discussing dimensionality, I was & am. Thus
the fact stated above. You cannot prove ANY published definition
of numerology that has ANYTHING to do with dimensional equations.

[...]

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.


You're brain dead!


No, I'd only be brain dead if I really believed there was anything
anyone could write that you would dismiss out of hand.


Right

I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't
ask you to write MORE Bilge.


So? I've asked you numerous times to derive something or provide
mathematical definitions for things, and you never do. What makes
you so special?


Ask those that know me personally... In fact I've provided the
reasoning & expressions you simply won't look. Just like those
in "Pushing Gravity ...".

[...]
I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.


Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.


I hope I met your expectations.


Oh, you exceed them. Your bluff was called, you couldn't put up,
and didn't shut up...

Paul Stowe

  #155  
Old July 20th 04, 03:39 AM
Paul Stowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:25:57 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:


We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.


This, is your originality???


This discussion isn't original. Why should I be original?


In fact, NOTHING you've ever posted has been 'original'...

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships


We aren't discussing dimensional relationships. We're discussing
your attempt to turn dimensional relationships into numerology.


You mean YOU aren't discussing dimensionality, I was & am. Thus
the fact stated above. You cannot prove ANY published definition
of numerology that has ANYTHING to do with dimensional equations.

[...]

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.


You're brain dead!


No, I'd only be brain dead if I really believed there was anything
anyone could write that you would dismiss out of hand.


Right

I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't
ask you to write MORE Bilge.


So? I've asked you numerous times to derive something or provide
mathematical definitions for things, and you never do. What makes
you so special?


Ask those that know me personally... In fact I've provided the
reasoning & expressions you simply won't look. Just like those
in "Pushing Gravity ...".

[...]
I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.


Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.


I hope I met your expectations.


Oh, you exceed them. Your bluff was called, you couldn't put up,
and didn't shut up...

Paul Stowe

  #156  
Old July 20th 04, 04:14 AM
Paul Stowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:34:47 -0700, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:34:27 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
| wrote:
|
|"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
[ snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...oactivex. leb
esque-al.net&rnum=4

|
| Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
| factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
| etc.

Sorry, it was magnetic flux that was fixed, not mag field. I see you have
changed it again.


Corrected it, yes. Sorry I mix things up sometimes, we're all human.

Where are you getting your definitions from? Griffiths is showing magnetic
field to be tesla.


Here's what I 'remember'. The symbol B (I call intensity) is dmensionless.
This is Tesla (I didn't memorize that fact). The symbol H is flux in
dimensions of area (m^2) and is called the Weber (again I didn't memorize
this). I memorize B - dimensionless, H - area.

And mag flux to be weber. And H to be amp/meter. Jackson agrees with mag
flux and calls it a weber. However, he calls "mag field", H, amp/meter and
tesla, B, "mag induction". It would be nice if there was some consistancy
here. ;-(


Yes, it would ...

OK, I suppose we should go with NIST definitions for SI? They agree with
Jackson for mag flux as weber and magnetic field strength as H, amp/meter.
But they call B, tesla, "magnetic flux density" which looks OK to me since
it is weber/m^2. So how about going with the NIST definitions so we can
all be on the same page?


Flux density equals my term 'intensity', great. Field strength should
be thought of as the area of magnetic intensity that it takes creates a
certain measured effect. The higher the intensity, the smaller the
cross-sectional area required to achieve the result.
[i]
Is magnetic intensity the same as mag flux density? You had the conversion
for mag flux density (intensity?) as a tesla; it has to be tesla^-1 in order
for mag flux density to be dimensionless. Corrections made below.

| Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)
|
| Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
| Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
| Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
| Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
| Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
| Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
| Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
| Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
| Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
| Current (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
| Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
| Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
| Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
| Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
| Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
| Magnetic Intensity (Weber/m^2) tesla^-1 Dimensionless **
| Magnetic Flux (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
| Inductance [henry] tesla^-2 kg-m^2
| Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3
|
| ??? A Tesla is, in my clarified system of SI, is dimensionless. It is
| has dimensions of Weber/m^2 (See: http://www.teslasociety.com/teslaunit.htm).
| A weber is a Volt-second (See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/we/weber.html).

Yes, I know. That is why all the conversion factors are in powers of a
tesla (kg/coul-sec). It is interesting that the conversion for E is 1/tesla
while displacement, D, is tesla. This is strange as the conversion from CGS
to your units for E and D would be the same since they have the same units.
???


Why do you consider this strange? I'd think this was a plus, a simplification.
It is only strange because of the way cgs evolved.

| Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
| dimensionless.
|
| The magnetic 'intensity' is a indication of the 'linear' effect that the
| circulation (Curl) has at that point in space. It is definitely
| dimensionless. For example,
|
| F = q(v X B)
|
| Since q is the mean magnitude of the cyclic field flow (Div) pointing
| to (or from) a point and B represents the circulation around that point
| in a plane. We also know that,
|
| F = qE
|
| And then we should discern that we can equate,
|
| E = (v X B)
|
| Does this not tell us that the E field is just a manifestation of a
| velocity field (v) interacting with B's (Curl) circulation???

Yes, that looks OK.

| What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we did trip
| across the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition of the
| ampere,it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm....
|
| I've known that for a very long time. Think about the mechanical example
| of a LHO. Such as,
| __
| 1 /
| ====== (Kg/sec) = --- / Km
| 2pi \/
| \\| __________
| \\| | |
| \\| |\ \ \ | |
| \\|- \ \(K)\ |-| (m) |
| \\| \ \ \| | |
| \\| |__________|
| \\|______________________________
| \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
| Now, define the actual velocity of m wrt to displacement. It certainly
| isn't constant or linear. Thus the momentum of m wrt displacement isn't
| constant (mv) but is a function of the displacement distance m. Work it
| out and solve the above LHO equation... You'll get a definite value for
| kg/sec^2. I think you'll find the exercise interesting.

Akk! I have get this from google because of the font thing again to
decipher your ascii art. Or you can just work it out if you wish.


I finally loaded up Outlook so that I could figure out & propose a
solution for this. If you're using Outlook, select Reply, highlight
the section, click on the Format menu item, Font, select Courier New
and presto, you can see it.

| Seems like we lose some functionality here.
|
| Not at all IMO...
|
| Magnetic Flux is area?
|
| Yeah, think about that

Well, there seems to be something missing here. That which is producing
this area?


It's not 'producing' the area. It's defining a cross-section area required
for the effect under consideration. The higher the B, the smaller the H is
to get an equal response.

| Electric field is length/time?
|
| Yes, a velocity term. But you do need to understand the concept of
| 'drift velocity' as applied to hydrodynamics.

Ok, explain it again please.


OK, again, let's consider a single ring vortex, then


o
===
o


Where the arrows represent poloidal circulation. Since you can't
see ASCII non-porportional illustrations correctly, the top is
clockwise, the bottom counter-clockwise circulation. In a static
field such a vortex will move ("drift") in the direction indicated
by the === at a velocity that is a function of the circulation
profile and other basic field properties. Another type of drift
is that seen as an example of two cylinders spinning in a medium.
Under the mutual interacting circulational field the will either
'drift' together or apart, again with a characteristic velocity.

Paul Stowe
  #157  
Old July 20th 04, 04:14 AM
Paul Stowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:34:47 -0700, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:34:27 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
| wrote:
|
|"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
[ snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...oactivex. leb
esque-al.net&rnum=4

|
| Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
| factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
| etc.

Sorry, it was magnetic flux that was fixed, not mag field. I see you have
changed it again.


Corrected it, yes. Sorry I mix things up sometimes, we're all human.

Where are you getting your definitions from? Griffiths is showing magnetic
field to be tesla.


Here's what I 'remember'. The symbol B (I call intensity) is dmensionless.
This is Tesla (I didn't memorize that fact). The symbol H is flux in
dimensions of area (m^2) and is called the Weber (again I didn't memorize
this). I memorize B - dimensionless, H - area.

And mag flux to be weber. And H to be amp/meter. Jackson agrees with mag
flux and calls it a weber. However, he calls "mag field", H, amp/meter and
tesla, B, "mag induction". It would be nice if there was some consistancy
here. ;-(


Yes, it would ...

OK, I suppose we should go with NIST definitions for SI? They agree with
Jackson for mag flux as weber and magnetic field strength as H, amp/meter.
But they call B, tesla, "magnetic flux density" which looks OK to me since
it is weber/m^2. So how about going with the NIST definitions so we can
all be on the same page?


Flux density equals my term 'intensity', great. Field strength should
be thought of as the area of magnetic intensity that it takes creates a
certain measured effect. The higher the intensity, the smaller the
cross-sectional area required to achieve the result.
[i]
Is magnetic intensity the same as mag flux density? You had the conversion
for mag flux density (intensity?) as a tesla; it has to be tesla^-1 in order
for mag flux density to be dimensionless. Corrections made below.

| Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)
|
| Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
| Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
| Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
| Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
| Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
| Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
| Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
| Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
| Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
| Current (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
| Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
| Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
| Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
| Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
| Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
| Magnetic Intensity (Weber/m^2) tesla^-1 Dimensionless **
| Magnetic Flux (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
| Inductance [henry] tesla^-2 kg-m^2
| Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3
|
| ??? A Tesla is, in my clarified system of SI, is dimensionless. It is
| has dimensions of Weber/m^2 (See: http://www.teslasociety.com/teslaunit.htm).
| A weber is a Volt-second (See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/we/weber.html).

Yes, I know. That is why all the conversion factors are in powers of a
tesla (kg/coul-sec). It is interesting that the conversion for E is 1/tesla
while displacement, D, is tesla. This is strange as the conversion from CGS
to your units for E and D would be the same since they have the same units.
???


Why do you consider this strange? I'd think this was a plus, a simplification.
It is only strange because of the way cgs evolved.

| Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
| dimensionless.
|
| The magnetic 'intensity' is a indication of the 'linear' effect that the
| circulation (Curl) has at that point in space. It is definitely
| dimensionless. For example,
|
| F = q(v X B)
|
| Since q is the mean magnitude of the cyclic field flow (Div) pointing
| to (or from) a point and B represents the circulation around that point
| in a plane. We also know that,
|
| F = qE
|
| And then we should discern that we can equate,
|
| E = (v X B)
|
| Does this not tell us that the E field is just a manifestation of a
| velocity field (v) interacting with B's (Curl) circulation???

Yes, that looks OK.

| What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we did trip
| across the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition of the
| ampere,it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm....
|
| I've known that for a very long time. Think about the mechanical example
| of a LHO. Such as,
| __
| 1 /
| ====== (Kg/sec) = --- / Km
| 2pi \/
| \\| __________
| \\| | |
| \\| |\ \ \ | |
| \\|- \ \(K)\ |-| (m) |
| \\| \ \ \| | |
| \\| |__________|
| \\|______________________________
| \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
| Now, define the actual velocity of m wrt to displacement. It certainly
| isn't constant or linear. Thus the momentum of m wrt displacement isn't
| constant (mv) but is a function of the displacement distance m. Work it
| out and solve the above LHO equation... You'll get a definite value for
| kg/sec^2. I think you'll find the exercise interesting.

Akk! I have get this from google because of the font thing again to
decipher your ascii art. Or you can just work it out if you wish.


I finally loaded up Outlook so that I could figure out & propose a
solution for this. If you're using Outlook, select Reply, highlight
the section, click on the Format menu item, Font, select Courier New
and presto, you can see it.

| Seems like we lose some functionality here.
|
| Not at all IMO...
|
| Magnetic Flux is area?
|
| Yeah, think about that

Well, there seems to be something missing here. That which is producing
this area?


It's not 'producing' the area. It's defining a cross-section area required
for the effect under consideration. The higher the B, the smaller the H is
to get an equal response.

| Electric field is length/time?
|
| Yes, a velocity term. But you do need to understand the concept of
| 'drift velocity' as applied to hydrodynamics.

Ok, explain it again please.


OK, again, let's consider a single ring vortex, then


o
===
o


Where the arrows represent poloidal circulation. Since you can't
see ASCII non-porportional illustrations correctly, the top is
clockwise, the bottom counter-clockwise circulation. In a static
field such a vortex will move ("drift") in the direction indicated
by the === at a velocity that is a function of the circulation
profile and other basic field properties. Another type of drift
is that seen as an example of two cylinders spinning in a medium.
Under the mutual interacting circulational field the will either
'drift' together or apart, again with a characteristic velocity.

Paul Stowe
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Finds Ocean Water on Mars - Long John Silver's Gives America Free Giant Shrimp To Celebrate Ron Astronomy Misc 0 March 25th 04 06:25 PM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (Long Text) Kazmer Ujvarosy UK Astronomy 3 December 25th 03 11:41 PM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) Kazmer Ujvarosy SETI 2 December 25th 03 08:33 PM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times Kazmer Ujvarosy Astronomy Misc 0 December 25th 03 06:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.