Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Integrated AGC 100kHz-10MHz
Next: Piezo Amplifier
From: Sylvia Else on 3 Jan 2010 04:27 Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:48:17 +1100, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here? > > With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly > function, you included, no. > >> C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what? > > You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything > in it moves through. Does everything? How can you tell whether something is moving? You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative, your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to say what. Sylvia.
From: Capt. Cave Man on 3 Jan 2010 04:37 On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:27:12 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >Archimedes' Lever wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:48:17 +1100, Sylvia Else >> <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> >>> Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here? >> >> With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly >> function, you included, no. >> >>> C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what? >> >> You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything >> in it moves through. > >Does everything? Absolutely. There is not a single object anywhere in our universe that is not in motion. > How can you tell whether something is moving? Apparently much easier and much better than you can. >You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative, >your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to >say what. I gave you a link, and told you where to look. Can you really behave in a way that is even thicker than your skull? I guess so. "Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with the Hubble flow." Try visiting the link, twit.
From: Sylvia Else on 3 Jan 2010 06:10 Capt. Cave Man wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:27:12 +1100, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:48:17 +1100, Sylvia Else >>> <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >>> >>>> Wouldn't it take more than one neuron for me to be able to post here? >>> With so many posting here that have no plurality of them that properly >>> function, you included, no. >>> >>>> C'mon. It's a simple question. Given velocity relative to what? >>> You simply cannot grasp the concept that open space is what everything >>> in it moves through. >> Does everything? > > Absolutely. There is not a single object anywhere in our universe that > is not in motion. This you know because? On the face of it, if you can identify a specific velocity that an object has, then you can arrange for another object to be stationary. There would then be such an object, so the claim of knowledge that one does not already exist seems to go beyond what is reasonable. Of course, that just begs the question of what it means to say that an object has a velocity without specifying what it's relative to. But the proper conclusion is that it's not sensible to talk about things moving through space other than in the most informal terms. > >> How can you tell whether something is moving? > > Apparently much easier and much better than you can. > >> You talked about a given velocity. Since velocities are always relative, >> your "given velocity" must be relative to something. But you have yet to >> say what. > > I gave you a link, and told you where to look. Can you really behave in > a way that is even thicker than your skull? I guess so. > > "Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per > second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with > the Hubble flow." > > Try visiting the link, twit. Are you saying that the local space is that space that moves with the common velocity relative to the Hubble flow? Sylvia
From: Capt. Cave Man on 3 Jan 2010 10:07 On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:10:45 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> Absolutely. There is not a single object anywhere in our universe that >> is not in motion. > >This you know because? Because there is no place in the universe that is absent the attraction of another mass.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 3 Jan 2010 10:08
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:10:45 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >On the face of it, if you can identify a specific velocity that an >object has, then you can arrange for another object to be stationary. Wrong. Just because you reference it to another local object does not discount nor remove the fact that they are both moving. They do not have to be moving toward or away from each other. |