Re: speed of light

[maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>]

Thank heavens, the angles are ok, but we've lost all the angels - needles don't have heads - all the angels fell off. Who stole the pins?  There

simply was not enought room. I have not heard yet whether or not any of them were injured, but they should have been able to glide to safety - guided

perhaps by one of those radioactive thermal generators.



Jack, can you spare one of those stick-on targets - I think in my emotional state over the loose angels, I threw myself to the ground and miissed ....



Maury Siskel                        maury@webtexas.com

===========================================

Jack_Earley@RL.GOV wrote:



> The sad thing is, I followed your logic completely.

> Jack Earley

> Radiological Engineer

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Dimiter Popoff [mailto:tgi@cit.bg]

> 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

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> >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>

> >>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

> ----------------  several parts snipped  -------------------------



************************************************************************

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/