LOL BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server?
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience > moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. > > Fred > >> [Original Message] >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >> >> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight > minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the > right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in > orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they > obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >> >> >> > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 >> > -0500: >> > Hi, >> > [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when >> >>moving in a horizontal plane. >> >> >> >>Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the > less >> >>you weigh. >> >>Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. >> >>Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. >> >> >> >>Harry >> > >> > Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of >> > them. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Robin van Spaandonk >> > >> > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ >> > >> > Competition provides the motivation, >> > Cooperation provides the means. >> > > > >
