FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering » Mechanics
So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [42 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:26 am    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:lajfc3xpof.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
Quote:
You adequately display total lack of comprehension of relativity.

Damn,
I thought this was an engineering group,
not a relativity kiss ass group.
Excuse me for looking for people that think for themselves
and are not brainwashed beyond help.
:)

Quote:
PLONK!

Fine,
Thank You.
Smile
Back to top
Bernd Felsche
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:52 am    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> writes:

Quote:
"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:amhdc3xni6.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
| "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> writes:
|
| >Dear Bernd Felsche:
|
| >"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
| >news:cu7dc3x365.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
| >...
| >> Perhaps you need a refresher course in special relativity.
|
| >You might be interested in this:
| >http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/index.html
|
| OK... make that a PERCUSSIVE refresher course in special relativity.

So, you accept someone elses webpage about me and

That's not the basis for determining your thickness.

You adequately display total lack of comprehension of relativity.

<PLONK!>

Quote:
take it as fact, no wonder you can't grasp a clock funtion
problem, you must have been brainwashed to think
the clocks are perfect, even though they could not be
since if they were, there would be no time difference
at all... ever.
--

/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:28 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:amhdc3xni6.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
| "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> writes:
|
| >Dear Bernd Felsche:
|
| >"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
| >news:cu7dc3x365.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
| >...
| >> Perhaps you need a refresher course in special relativity.
|
| >You might be interested in this:
| >http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/index.html
|
| OK... make that a PERCUSSIVE refresher course in special relativity.

So, you accept someone elses webpage about me and
take it as fact, no wonder you can't grasp a clock funtion
problem, you must have been brainwashed to think
the clocks are perfect, even though they could not be
since if they were, there would be no time difference
at all... ever.
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:27 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:LCSIf.32849$jR.5880@fed1read01...
| You might be interested in this:
| http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/index.html

When you can not attack the post itslelf,
attack the poster.
I used to have that problem, and now
it seems it is the opposite now.
Smile
At least I learn from my posting mistakes.
Smile
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:26 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:cu7dc3x365.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
| Perhaps you need a refresher course in special relativity.
| A "perfect" clock moving relative to a "perfect" reference clock,
| will "tick" more slowly relative to the reference clock. When the
| moving clock is brought to a standstill relative to the reference
| clock, less time will have elapsed on the clock that was moving.

You seem to need a refresher course in how clocks function.
The clocks were not perfect.
The end results are of SR tests are actual proof.they are still
not perfect.


| IIRC; Apollo 13 astronauts are about 300 milliseconds younger
| because they went so fast; for a fairly long time.

You have a problem with that one,
Nasa has to make the astonauts exercise,
If they do not exercise they actually will somewhat
age quicker in some places,
because of the lack of use of certain muscles.

<snipped a second lack of smarts about clock function>
Back to top
Bernd Felsche
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:11 am    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> writes:

Quote:
Dear Bernd Felsche:

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:cu7dc3x365.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
...
Perhaps you need a refresher course in special relativity.

You might be interested in this:
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/index.html

OK... make that a PERCUSSIVE refresher course in special relativity.
Smile
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

Dear Bernd Felsche:

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:cu7dc3x365.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
....
Quote:
Perhaps you need a refresher course in special relativity.

You might be interested in this:
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/index.html

Spaceman has been at it since 2001, at least.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44c31cfe521e29de

David A. Smith
Back to top
Bernd Felsche
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:25 am    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> writes:
Quote:
"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

| The other potential variable is of course time. Time is apparently
| relative so the length of the SI reference will vary depending on
| the observer. I'm sorry but thinking about that sort of thing makes
| my brain hurt unless I've had a lot of alcohol to drink before-hand.

Time changing rate is a malfunction of a clock,

Perhaps you need a refresher course in special relativity.
A "perfect" clock moving relative to a "perfect" reference clock,
will "tick" more slowly relative to the reference clock. When the
moving clock is brought to a standstill relative to the reference
clock, less time will have elapsed on the clock that was moving.

IIRC; Apollo 13 astronauts are about 300 milliseconds younger
because they went so fast; for a fairly long time.

If the clock is moving relative to the observer noting the distance
travelled by light over the interval, then the dilation will lead to
a longer distance for the interval.

To account for special relativity, the specification of the metre
need only require that the clock not be moving relative to the
observer.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:16 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Tom Sanderson" <tdscanuck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Iuqx90.8Js@news.boeing.com...
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
| > It has never been tested in that way that I can find anywhere.
|
| It has never been tested in a way you accept. That's different.

It is not a matter of testing it in a way I accept,
It is a matter of testing it in a different way then it has been
tested.


| > It is also a relativity based situation so relative speeds are being
| > ignored as a cause in such?.
|
| No, relativity based speeds are what cause c to be a constant. They're
| intimately included in the experiment.

How can you include a "constant c" to find out if it is not constant,
That is silly. If you already make it a constant, how would it change
at all.


| Yes.
|
| > If you are an engineer, I find it very hard that you can not realize
| > that a time dilation is a clock malfunction and nothing more than such.
|
| As others have done, and I should have, this conversation has to be
dropped.
| You don't understand special relativity. Time dilation isn't a clock
| malfunction, simple as that, since it will occur even with a perfect
clock.

Wow,
You truly are not an smart engineer.
A smart engineer would know a perfect clock would never change
rate ... ever.


| > Let's take a brick wall and a bullet hitting it.
| > If you say we don't know if the brick wall is moving
| > or the bullet is moving.
| > How come the end result shows us it was the bullets speed
| > doing the damage, and not the massive brick wall hitting the bullet.
|
| The end result does not show that. If you mount the brick wall on a
| conveyor going bullet-speet (say, 1500 fps) and run it into a stationary
| bullet, you will get *exactly* the same result.

So the energy from a moving wall (say a 1 ton wall)
would have the same impact on a bullet,
that a bullets total energy would have on the wall?
KE does not like that situation.


| > If a 1 ton brick wall hits the bullet how much
| > energy would be hitting the bullet?
|
| You're talking about kinetic energy, which only has meaning when measured
| against a reference point. The kinetic energy isn't an absolute, it
changes
| depending on your reference point. It's meaningless to determine which
| object is in motion based on kinetic energy, because you can always pick a
| reference point for which KE is zero for any object.

Not in an impact you can't.
There is nowhere in the universe that the "bullet hitting the wall
experiment"
would show no KE occured to the bullet or the wall.
Sheesh,
For an engineer, you are truly brainwashed by relativity.


| > Another example could be 2 identical cars.
| > heading towards each other at a relative speed of
| > 100 mphs.
| > We can find the actual speeds by the end result of the crash.
|
| A crash is a horrible example, since as soon as you bring acceleration
into
| it several parts of relativity don't apply. The physics just aren't the
| same as what we've been talking about elsewhere. Ditto for the bullet &
the
| brick, now that I think about it.

Relativity applies fine,
you just have to allow it to have a "rest" frame.


| > | Doppler effect relates to frequency, not
| > | propagation velocity.
| >
| > Wrong. the propagation velocity is what changes the frequency
| > by changing the time the wavelength goes by the object.
| > It is the only physical reason for doppler shift without a medium
| > in motion.
|
| The physical reason for doppler shift is motion between the observer and
the
| source...doppler shift will occur regardless of the propagation speed of
the
| wave (provided it is finite).

The propagation speed of the wave WRT the object passing through it,
is what causes the change in frequency.
Doppler can not occur if the wave does not pass by the object
slower or faster than a 0 relatvie motion.


| > A constant speed to all would mean no doppler ever.
|
| No. Light undergoing a dopper shift still moves at c.

No,
it can't.
If it did, no frequency change could occur.


| > It is a reason to question the constant speed of light, since
| > it can not be a speed of c and also come up with a frequency
| > change.
|
| Yes, it can. It does.

No, it can't, and it does not.

| I'm out.

You should be,
You don't understand basic doppler shift.
Back to top
Tom Sanderson
science forum addict


Joined: 22 Dec 2005
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Quote:
It has never been tested in that way that I can find anywhere.

It has never been tested in a way you accept. That's different.

Quote:
It is also a relativity based situation so relative speeds are being
ignored as a cause in such?.

No, relativity based speeds are what cause c to be a constant. They're
intimately included in the experiment.

Quote:
Are you actually an engineer?

Yes.

Quote:
If you are an engineer, I find it very hard that you can not realize
that a time dilation is a clock malfunction and nothing more than such.

As others have done, and I should have, this conversation has to be dropped.
You don't understand special relativity. Time dilation isn't a clock
malfunction, simple as that, since it will occur even with a perfect clock.

Quote:
I am not picking an absolute, I am picking a known rest frame.
With such rest frame, the ship is moving towards the light.

That's the problem...there's no such thing as a rest frame. That's the
whole underpinning of relativity.

Quote:
Let's take a brick wall and a bullet hitting it.
If you say we don't know if the brick wall is moving
or the bullet is moving.
How come the end result shows us it was the bullets speed
doing the damage, and not the massive brick wall hitting the bullet.

The end result does not show that. If you mount the brick wall on a
conveyor going bullet-speet (say, 1500 fps) and run it into a stationary
bullet, you will get *exactly* the same result.

Quote:
If a 1 ton brick wall hits the bullet how much
energy would be hitting the bullet?

You're talking about kinetic energy, which only has meaning when measured
against a reference point. The kinetic energy isn't an absolute, it changes
depending on your reference point. It's meaningless to determine which
object is in motion based on kinetic energy, because you can always pick a
reference point for which KE is zero for any object.

Quote:
Another example could be 2 identical cars.
heading towards each other at a relative speed of
100 mphs.
We can find the actual speeds by the end result of the crash.

A crash is a horrible example, since as soon as you bring acceleration into
it several parts of relativity don't apply. The physics just aren't the
same as what we've been talking about elsewhere. Ditto for the bullet & the
brick, now that I think about it.

Quote:
| Doppler effect relates to frequency, not
| propagation velocity.

Wrong. the propagation velocity is what changes the frequency
by changing the time the wavelength goes by the object.
It is the only physical reason for doppler shift without a medium
in motion.

The physical reason for doppler shift is motion between the observer and the
source...doppler shift will occur regardless of the propagation speed of the
wave (provided it is finite).

Quote:
A constant speed to all would mean no doppler ever.

No. Light undergoing a dopper shift still moves at c.

Quote:
It is a reason to question the constant speed of light, since
it can not be a speed of c and also come up with a frequency
change.

Yes, it can. It does.

I'm out.

Tom.
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Tom Sanderson" <tdscanuck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IuqL4s.FAx@news.boeing.com...
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
| > | There's no difference between the lightsource moving towards the
| > observer
| > | and the observer moving towards the lightsource.
| >
| > Actually there would be, the lightsource will always emit at c. The
| > object heading towards it is what I think would not
| > read such a c.
|
| This is the Newtonian physics interpretation of the situation; it has been
| proven wrong several times by experiment.

It has never been tested in that way that I can find anywhere.
and Tom,
It is also a relativity based situation so relative speeds are
being ignored as a cause in such?.
Sch a test with an observer moving towards the lightsource
has not been done.
If you can find such, please do post a link.


| The source will emit light at c. The observer will always see it at c,
for
| one of two reasons:
| 1) If the observer is stationary relative to the source, they will get c,
| obviously
| 2) If the observer is moving relative to the source, the observer will
| experience time dilation relative to the source, causing them to observe
the
| same value of c despite the speed difference between source and observer.

Tom,
Are you actually an engineer?
If you are an engineer, I find it very hard that you can not realize
that a time dilation is a clock malfunction and nothing more than such.


| Yes, it is. The only way that it can be different is if there is an
| absolute reference frame to measure both source and observer against;
nobody
| has ever discovered such a reference. Otherwise there is no physical
| difference since you can't tell which one is "stationary".

The lightsource is "at rest" compared to Earth.
I am not picking an absolute, I am picking a known rest frame.
With such rest frame, the ship is moving towards the light.

And for your info.
Let's take a brick wall and a bullet hitting it.
If you say we don't know if the brick wall is moving
or the bullet is moving.
How come the end result shows us it was the bullets speed
doing the damage, and not the massive brick wall hitting the bullet.
If a 1 ton brick wall hits the bullet how much
energy would be hitting the bullet?
The end result does show you a basic fact of what was doing the
motion compared to the other.

Another example could be 2 identical cars.
heading towards each other at a relative speed of
100 mphs.
We can find the actual speeds by the end result of the crash.
If all the parts are thrown behind one car, that car was technically
stationery and the other car was doing 100mph.
End results do show, what was moving, so relativities
they are both moving crap, is null and void when such
end results can find such facts about the actual motion.

| They will *not* see a speed change relative to the medium of transmission.
| They will see a frequency shift.

Frequncy shift occurs from a relative motion difference.

| Doppler effect relates to frequency, not
| propagation velocity.

Wrong. the propagation velocity is what changes the frequency
by changing the time the wavelength goes by the object.
It is the only physical reason for doppler shift without a medium
in motion.



| Light undergoes the same thing (red shift). Light
| does *not* have a constant frequency between moving observers, only
constant
| velocity.

A constant speed to all would mean no doppler ever.

| The effect your talking about (frequency shift) *is* caused by change in
| relative speed. But it has nothing to do with calculating c.

It is a reason to question the constant speed of light, since
it can not be a speed of c and also come up with a frequency
change.


| Why does the experiment have to be Earth based? There's a whole lot of
| convenient vacuum out there...

Because using a "rest frame" compared to lots of other things
in such rest frame makes it easy to figure out what is actually moving
compared to the Earth itself.
(see the 2 cars, and bullet and wall, statements above)
Back to top
Tom Sanderson
science forum addict


Joined: 22 Dec 2005
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:14 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Quote:
| There's no difference between the lightsource moving towards the
observer
| and the observer moving towards the lightsource.

Actually there would be, the lightsource will always emit at c. The
object heading towards it is what I think would not
read such a c.

This is the Newtonian physics interpretation of the situation; it has been
proven wrong several times by experiment. You may not accept that light
speed is a constant but it absolutely does not obey Newtonian physics, as
you're suggesting.

The source will emit light at c. The observer will always see it at c, for
one of two reasons:
1) If the observer is stationary relative to the source, they will get c,
obviously
2) If the observer is moving relative to the source, the observer will
experience time dilation relative to the source, causing them to observe the
same value of c despite the speed difference between source and observer.

Time dilation exactly counteracts the shift in c that you'd expect under
Newtonian physics. Time dilation is a very well documented and tested
phenomenon, and it applies to things other than photons. Or do you suspect
the time dilation experiments as well?

Quote:
| That's just basic vector
| math. The experiments where you saw the lightsource moving towards the
| observer *are* experiments where the observer was heading towards the
| lightsource.

No, It is not the same.

Yes, it is. The only way that it can be different is if there is an
absolute reference frame to measure both source and observer against; nobody
has ever discovered such a reference. Otherwise there is no physical
difference since you can't tell which one is "stationary".

Quote:
| Speed of sound depends on temperature and material.

So does light.

Yes, which is why we're talking about speed of light in a vacuum (which is a
defined material with a defined temperature).

Quote:
No actually,
observers traveling towards the sound source will find a relative
speed change "doppler effect" and the speed is the only thing
causing such change of frequency.

They will *not* see a speed change relative to the medium of transmission.
They will see a frequency shift. Doppler effect relates to frequency, not
propagation velocity. Light undergoes the same thing (red shift). Light
does *not* have a constant frequency between moving observers, only constant
velocity.

Quote:
I suggest this effect is caused by the change in relative speed.
and I can not find any Earth based experiment that has tested
this type of motion. (object moving towards lightsource)

The effect your talking about (frequency shift) *is* caused by change in
relative speed. But it has nothing to do with calculating c.

Why does the experiment have to be Earth based? There's a whole lot of
convenient vacuum out there...

Tom.
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:52sac3xf8r.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
| The other potential variable is of course time. Time is apparently
| relative so the length of the SI reference will vary depending on
| the observer. I'm sorry but thinking about that sort of thing makes
| my brain hurt unless I've had a lot of alcohol to drink before-hand.

Time changing rate is a malfunction of a clock,
In fact if you replace "time changed rate" with
"the clock malfunctioned".
There is no problem with such a statement at all being just as
true and the clock malfunctioning fits better since any good engineer
would know that if a timing device did not match another,
there is a problem with the timing device and what it is going through.

So time changing rate is really not even a good cause found by SR
since it actually ends up being stated as
time changed rate in the moving objects frame because time changed rate.
and that circular reasoning is not even a cause finding in reality.
Smile
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"John Eric Voltin" <jevoltin@agile-technology.com> wrote in message
news:63zIf.10204$UN2.5585@tornado.texas.rr.com...
| I'm not certain I understand the subtleties of your argument, but you seem
| concerned about using a speed to define a distance. Generally, your
concern
| is quite valid, but the definitition of a meter is a special case. This
| definition is accepted because the speed of light (c) is accepted to be a
| constant. If the speed of light is not treated as a constant, then the
| definition of a meter becomes problematic. I can't claim to be an expert
on
| topics such as the speed of light, but much experimentation and research
| went into this topic before the speed of light was accepted as a constant.
| This result is definitely counter-intuitive and inconsistent with
classical
| physics (Is it formally called Newtonian physics? I don't remember.). I
| still remember sitting in freshman physics class and thinking my
professor,
| Dr. Austin Gleeson, must be confused because this aspect of physics made
no
| sense to me. After careful thought and much review of the experimental
| evidence, I began accepting such counter-intuitive aspects of physics.
|
| I would be interested in learning more about your concerns. Please
correct
| me if I mis-interpreted your posting.

Hi John,
I am very much aware of the "accepted" constant,
The problem I see is the experiments that are the supposed proof.
Each end every experiment I see could have actually used
sound (in air) as a constant speed also.
Each and every Earth based experiment never had an object
heading towards the lightsource.
If an object heading towards the light source occured I find it very hard
to believe that the basic math of such occuring is wrong
and that the light will still pass the object heading towards it
at c, In fact it would basically have to ignore relativity itself to do
such.
Back to top
Spaceman
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Re: So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Reply with quote

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:2ZwIf.32764$jR.25033@fed1read01...
| Dear Spaceman:
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:b86dnatDnf8w62_eRVn-sw@comcast.com...
| >
| > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
| > wrote in
| > message news:anuIf.32754$jR.1230@fed1read01...
| > | Sorry Nature does not agree with you. If you can learn Her
| > | lessons, She will not be forced to break your leg, or end
| > your
| > | life in favor of a member that can learn it.
| >
| > Dear David,
| > Please take your "know it all" attitude and stick
|
| It had been a pleasure to talk with you before you had to have
| everyone agree with you. Thanks for playing. Now that you are
| back in rant mode...

Thanks for ignoring the facts presented after.
It is a good sign.
Smile
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [42 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:17 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering » Mechanics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Definition of Derivative and its relationship with the co... greenishguy@gmail.com Math 5 Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:02 am
No new posts Absolutely convergent sets as a definition for real numbers Gene Ward Smith Math 3 Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:04 am
No new posts What is your preferred definition of "scalar" Hatto von Aquitanien Math 11 Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:04 pm
No new posts Definition of limit involving vector pairs mameha Math 7 Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:33 pm
No new posts Silly Proof E1 Math 7 Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:39 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0233s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0022s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]