[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: speed of light
The sad thing is, I followed your logic completely.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: Dimiter Popoff [mailto:tgi@cit.bg]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:27 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: speed of light
Here is what I conclude from what we have so far:
All angels can dance on the head of a needle. Then a hexagon has six
angles, but they don't dance. Thus on a hexagonal needle top we have
all dancing angels plus six non-dancing ones. If we extend this to
an octagon, we get all of them dancing and 8 non-dancing ones. I'll
save the prove for someone who has studied maths in English (about
limits etc.) but the obvious conclusion is that on a circular head
of a needle we can have all the angels we want dancing and all of them
not dancing.
The issue on how we can have all of them dancing and all of them
not dancing simultaneousy I expect to be explained at a later
stage as new relativistic effects are discovered.
Dimiter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff
Transgalactic Instruments, Gourko Str. 25 b, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
http://transgalactic.freeyellow.com <---- now with the new Nukeman
Email: tgi@cit.bg, tgi_earth@yahoo.com
Phone: 00359/2/9923340, 00359/2/566752, Fax: 00359/2/9540384
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>And here I thought that the "Angles" had all disappeared after succesfully
>invading England about 1300 years ago. Well I guess it is good to know
that
>they are still alive and dancing no matter what their density on the dance
>floor. :-)
>
>
>>From: "Strickert, Rick" <rstrickert@signaturescience.com>
>>Reply-To: "Strickert, Rick" <rstrickert@signaturescience.com>
>>To: "radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>>Subject: RE: speed of light
>>Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:19:50 -0600
>>
>>Referring to a question posed by ThomasAquinas (Summa Theologiae, vol.
>>52, no. 3, 1266), John Jacobus asked:
>>
>> > And what does this have to do with the number of angles
>> > that can dance on the head of a pin?
>>
>>According to Dr. Phil Schewe the answer is 10^25.
>>(http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/scienceqa/archive/971111.html)
>>,
>>
>>However that number has been disputed by Andars Sandberg in his paper,
>>"Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem" (Annals of
>>Improbable Research, Vol. 7-3, June 22, 2001)
>>(http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm)
>>Sandberg sets the maximum number, which depends on angelic density, at
>>8.7 x 10^50.
>>
>>Others have simply stated, "All of them."
>>
>>Rick Strickert
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/