Earlier I wrote,
> You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This
> answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its
> gravitational acceleration impeded by another body.
>
and Robin van Spaandonk responded,
>> For in as much as I unde
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:38:38 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>> For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression
>> that
>> you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial mass,
>> and
>> without apparent cause as near as I can
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:17:58 -0500:
> Hi Harry,
> [snip]
You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract?
This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference
to having its gravitatio
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:17:58 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
>>> You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract?
>>> This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference
>>> to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another b
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:14:46 -0500:
> Hi Harry,
> [snip]
>> However, I also make distinction between gravitational
>> mass and inertial mass.
>>
>> The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is
>> this inertial mass th
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:14:46 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
>However, I also make distinction between gravitational
>mass and inertial mass.
>
>The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is
>this inertial mass that attracts (accelerates) the planets.
>
>Yo
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:24:34 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> New speculation:
>> The electrons and protons have weight only when they form
>> molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free
>> and when they are part of a
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:24:34 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> New speculation:
>> The electrons and protons have weight only when they form
>> molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free
>> and when they are part of a
thomas malloy wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> New speculation:
>> The electrons and protons have weight only when they form
>> molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free
>> and when they are part of a nucleus.
>>
> I don'
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:24:34 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>New speculation:
>The electrons and protons have weight only when they form
>molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free
>and when they are part of a nucleus.
[snip]
Since the Sun is mostly a
Harry Veeder wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Ok.
New speculation:
The electrons and protons have weight only when they form
molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free
and when they are part of a nucleus.
I don't understand why you would think that protrons wouldn't
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:07:30 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Here is another speculation:
>>
>> Maybe only neutrons have gravity.
> [snip]
> H2 gas has weight, and it has no neutrons (to speak of).
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:07:30 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Here is another speculation:
>
>Maybe only neutrons have gravity.
[snip]
H2 gas has weight, and it has no neutrons (to speak of).
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
Competition pro
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:37:45 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Obviouslybut then again
>> maybe free electrons and protons have no weight.
> [snip]
> The Solar corona (no to mention the Sun itself) is largely free electrons and
> protons,
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:37:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Obviouslybut then again
>maybe free electrons and protons have no weight.
[snip]
The Solar corona (no to mention the Sun itself) is largely free electrons and
protons, yet they are kept "attached" to the Sun by
On Saturday 25 November 2006 18:19, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:49 AM
> Subject: [Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
>
> > Rather than use h
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: [Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into
waste
heat, why not use electro magnetic sh
brid and fully electric cars feature kinetic energy
> recuperation already.Michel
> - Original Message -
> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
>
>
&g
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:11 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Vo]: weight and charge
I didn't follow all of this thread, but an interesting thought occurred to
me that may have been consider
ry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
>
>
> > Frederick Sparber wrote:
> >
> >> Harry Veeder wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Here is an example of "little spee
TED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
> Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
>> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating
>>> electricity.
>>>
>>>
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:16:15 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating
>> electricity.
>>
>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm
>>
> This device falls in the "not even wrong" ca
Frederick Sparber wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating
>> electricity.
>>
>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it
> cost me a tire and
I make an explicit distinction between inertial mass and
gravitational mass.
Lets call them m' for inertial mass and m~ for gravitational mass.
If a is an acceleration due to an inertial force,
and g is the acceleration due to gravity, then
weight = (m~)(g)
inertial force = (m')(a)
See my
their "entry level" position.
> >
> > OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam
> > if you tend to have a religious bent.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> 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 E
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:16:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating
>electricity.
>
>http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm
>
This device falls in the "not even wrong" category. Essentially it is an
extremely ineffic
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:40:25 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
Is it possible you are confusing weight and mass? (You're certainly confusing me
;)
>Michel,
>
>This time I am being serious.
>
>If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is
>apparent weight then
Harry Veeder wrote:
> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating
> electricity.
>
> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm
>
>
> Harry
>
follow-up
the piezoelectric freeway...
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/piezo_20motorway_20(freeway)
Harry
assumes what WalMart calls their "entry level" position.
>
> OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam
> if you tend to have a religious bent.
>
> Fred
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&g
Michel,
This time I am being serious.
If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is
apparent weight then it is easier to understand how
and why weight anomalies might arise.
Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate.
Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is
a relat
al Message]
> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
>
> LOL
>
> BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I
am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipp
parber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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]
>>
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:
> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
>
> I guess H
obviously still
experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight).
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
> In reply to Harry Veeder's m
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
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
