 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>
>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
>> at an asteroid nearby:
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
>
> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>
Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>
>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>
> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>
No, you were right the first time. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-12-2015 9:41, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>>
>>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
>>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>>
>> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>>
>
> No, you were right the first time. ;-)
>
>
I am getting old... Happily I am not God. My creation would be a mess :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/19/2015 8:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-12-2015 9:41, Stephen wrote:
>> On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>>>
>>>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
>>>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>>>
>>> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>>>
>>
>> No, you were right the first time. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> I am getting old... Happily I am not God. My creation would be a mess :-)
>
And this one isn't?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-12-2015 10:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 8:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-12-2015 9:41, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in
>>>>>> space,
>>>>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you were right the first time. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am getting old... Happily I am not God. My creation would be a mess :-)
>>
>
> And this one isn't?
>
>
The creator of duty has a lot to answer for...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/19/2015 12:06 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-12-2015 10:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 12/19/2015 8:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 19-12-2015 9:41, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in
>>>>>>> space,
>>>>>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you were right the first time. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am getting old... Happily I am not God. My creation would be a mess
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> And this one isn't?
>>
>>
>
> The creator of duty has a lot to answer for...
>
That's another one on my list, then. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.12.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Stephen:
> On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>>
>>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
>>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>>
>> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>>
>
> No, you were right the first time. ;-)
Actually, that depends on what "that" is supposed to denote:
"that" = (negative) "gravity": (negative) "centripetal force".
"that" = "negative gravity": (positive) "centrifugal force".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-12-2015 13:32, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.12.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 12/19/2015 8:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 18-12-2015 9:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>>>>>
>>>>> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
>>>>> at an asteroid nearby:
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
>>>>
>>> Ouch! "centrifugal" of course :-)
>>>
>>
>> No, you were right the first time. ;-)
>
> Actually, that depends on what "that" is supposed to denote:
>
> "that" = (negative) "gravity": (negative) "centripetal force".
>
> "that" = "negative gravity": (positive) "centrifugal force".
>
Well, in last resort, I meant the second one ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> Yes, I found out by myself, when reading it. That reporter used a very
> misleading headline, my apologies for my error.
Beware of science headlines. Headlines are designed to sell stories, and often
do not reflect the real story.
This is especially true in science, often made worse because most reporters
don't understand how science works. How often have you read about a new killer
asteroid being discovered, only to read a few days later that the asteroid isn't
going to hit us after all? The impression is left of scientists with egg on
their faces, when the truth is all that happened is that the scientists narrowed
the error bar after more data came in. But that's not how the headlines read.
It's especially bad with climate science reporting, due to the political climate
surrounding this issue. A temporary /slowdown/ in the /warming/ trend is
reported as the Earth is cooling off!
Never assume you know even the gist of a science report if you haven't read
beyond the headline. And never assume that the science report accurately
reflects the actual science paper, unless you have read the actual science
paper! (I know, it's tough.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> Yes, I found out by myself, when reading it. That reporter used a very
>> misleading headline, my apologies for my error.
>
> Beware of science headlines. Headlines are designed to sell stories, and often
> do not reflect the real story.
>
> This is especially true in science, often made worse because most reporters
> don't understand how science works. How often have you read about a new killer
> asteroid being discovered, only to read a few days later that the asteroid isn't
> going to hit us after all? The impression is left of scientists with egg on
> their faces, when the truth is all that happened is that the scientists narrowed
> the error bar after more data came in. But that's not how the headlines read.
>
> It's especially bad with climate science reporting, due to the political climate
> surrounding this issue. A temporary /slowdown/ in the /warming/ trend is
> reported as the Earth is cooling off!
>
> Never assume you know even the gist of a science report if you haven't read
> beyond the headline. And never assume that the science report accurately
> reflects the actual science paper, unless you have read the actual science
> paper! (I know, it's tough.)
>
>
So true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
