At 08:33 pm 27-10-04 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Frank.
>
>That all was a rather convoluted way of saying that a constant angular
>velocity gives rise to a ponderable force where a constant
>linear velocity does not. We'll not make any further headway until
>we bring together Michelson, Morley AND Gale.
>
>You write:
>>Well, the Silvertooth velocity of 378 kilometres per second
>>towards Leo is a good starting point.
>
>Yes, this is the Great Attractor. All mass in the visible
>sky is streaming towards that point in Leo. Bonus points for anyone with
>an explanation of how this is possible with Hubble expansion?
>Does one really preclude the other?
>
>As Adam, our Magickal Engineer knows, "as above, so below". That
>macroscopic streaming velocity of our local part of the universe
>is within' spittin' distance of the microscopic velocity
>
> e^2/h = 348 km/s
>
>I'm using CGS units here, don't try this at home with your SI units (grin).
>
>If we can squeeze 8 percent out of Silvertooth's measurement
>( or the astrophysicists ) then we might have something here.
>
>
>K.
In the circumstances I would think "8 percent" is bugger all. <g>
For me, the fact that it is the right order of magnitude is good
enough.
But you will have to explain to me - in Physics for Dummies terms -
exactly what,
e^2/h = 348 km/s
means. Or a intelligible reference would do.
I certainly like the hierarchical sound of "as above, so below".
It reminds me of my ...upon the clouds of heaven... thread, though I
suppose that would be more a case of *as below, so above* ;-)
Cheers
Frank
Incidently, I owe you an apology about OCR_ing. I tried to OCR one
of my jpeg pages and it came out all gobbledegook. I now realise that
cutting the original scan file size down to a point where it was
still reasonably readable on screen had crippled it for OCR.
