At 01:21 am 18/06/2006 -0400, John Herman wrote:
Dear Vo,
Will any contributor please let the lay population of Votex know what
the general terms mean if one reads:
GAGE
GAGUE
re gage
re gague
re gageu
or any variants of the above
I fully realize these
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My point is simply that if you use an electromagnet to lift the clip,
the Lorentz explanation holds and you clearly have a relativistic
effect.
Wait a minute, what do you mean by a relativistic effect? Is any
Michel Jullian wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#The_drift_speed_of_electric_charges
Almost unbelievable that such a low velocity leads to such a large relativistic effect, but I guess we can trust Einstein's maths.
If you read between the lines Michel, I think you will
Make that electron Loop Current I = q* c/lambda
Lambda = 2(pi)R = the Compton Wavelength (h/mc)
Sorry about that. :-(
Fred
- Original Message -
From: TP Sparber
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: 6/18/2006 5:56:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
john herman wrote...
I hope others in and of votrtex will ask this and similar terms to
be understood some how
OR:
How will we know what vortexians are trying
to talk about??
Howdy John,
You may become aware as others that the English language is evolving into a
"hunchbabe"
RC Macaulay wrote:
You may become aware as others that the English language is evolving into a
hunchbabe style communication
medium. These evolving forms no longer concern proper spelling and diction.
Those old forms of English are left
to the Brits.
On the contrary, American Engish is
ERDFBdpTlnusmKKuqT14slPlIq1X6v6I8Q1u18VHCrfzuYddJP36u9z4frKhWUIKdcLILDvbkLx1
7nXUUWKjjDa6G0oUqhW2CEK9kqD7ar5kRZGWlgJAhQOF3wy7bY1cCj2zNep6EwZc046rev8PDORoJWf
04s9goyLCcBZAxd104ogzMrh80WaLqpLDooPHGUWs0zbYaO3JJySTregkyd8jYAzHmn9pr
Apologies in advance to European readers who will not appreciate
the contextual nuances in this post (first in a series): which is
a take-off on the MasterCharge series of television
advertisements in the USA. It is perhaps appropriate to use this
particular cultural gimmick for 'drama' - as
It had been my intention to see who would be the first to comment
on:
1) Bucket of rainwater - ten cents
... as being related to the high cost of everything these days, if
bought with nearly wothless warbucks ... but to clarify the point:
... here is the situation which could result in a
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
Almost any small negative charge will likely be effective - and the 10
cents per bucketfull might suffice... although a kilowatt applied
during a rain storm might be on the low side for a large roof
If your hypothesis is correct,
Terry,
If your hypothesis is correct, should not burning my
grandmother's old
rain barrel generate more heat than burning another equivalent
mass of wood?
Keen observation. However, if hydrinohydrides diffused out of
rainwater and accumulates in wood preferentially (as opposed to
them
Oops.. G no doubt the inveterate TV viewers amongst us have
noticed that the writer of the former piece has, in his groogy
haste to belabor a point and hurry out a clever posting - totally
and egrregiously misidentified the correct name of the charge-card
and ad-campaign - it is MasterCard and
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
- it is MasterCard and not MasterCharge
It's okay, coming from a lysdexic.
Terry
(just returning from the blessing of the corner column of the Shri
Mandir being built practically in my back yard)
http://www.mandir.org
Fascinating!
- Original Message -
From: Grimer
In fact that is the very reason that this species
can have gone undetected by modern science.
That's a very good point. Conventional science ain't
very good with transient phenomena. That's why amateurs
still make a big contribution in comet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
The predicted magnetic field of a current can be obtained simply by
Lorentz transforming the electric field from the rest frame of the
charges making up the current to the frame of the observer moving
Right idea, wrong power source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0616-04.htm
Floating nukes??
Hmmm. If spammers send email to vortex-L, while forging the from address
to be a vortex subscriber, then their spam gets through.
(( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com
Harry Veeder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
The predicted magnetic field of a current can be obtained simply by
Lorentz transforming the electric field from the rest frame of the
charges making up the current to the frame of the
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0616-04.htm
QUOTE:
Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of Rosenergoatom, said: There will be no floating
Chernobyl, referring to the 1986 nuclear disaster. Sergey Obozov, a senior
official at the agency, said they would be reliable as a Kalashnikov assault
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Charges may be involved. However, the _reality_ of a permanent magnetic body
is not recognised by a relativistic charged based model of magnetism. The
relativistic model implies that the permanence of a permanent magnetic body
is a matter of opinion since one
Have been documented in the UK?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/aurora/
excerpting:
The aircraft has also been spotted across the US, in Norway and the
Netherlands, often to the accompaniment of a deafening sonic boom and
its characteristic donuts on a string con trail - caused by
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4765
That yellowish stain has attracted the attention of NASA and the
Canadian Space Agency because it has a link to extraterrestrial life,
Beauchamp, the executive director of the Arctic Institute of North
America, told Canada.com.
(Frank
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/14/film.supermanchristfigur
e.ap/
http://tinyurl.com/fbdl5
Some have also seen the hero as a gay icon, forced to live a double
life with his super-self in the closet. A recent edition of the gay
magazine The Advocate even asked on its cover, How
Following up my last reply...
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Consider a pure B field (no E field) in inertial frame S. Consider two
identical particles, particle P1, at rest in S, and particle P2, moving
in S. P1 feels no force, and is not accelerating.
A devout relativist (which I am not)
24 matches
Mail list logo
