| |
|
Article: <5aj8i6$5l6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: SPIN - the Zetas Explain
Date: 3 Jan 1997 15:28:06 GMT
In article <5afcv9$d9k$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
writes:
> Why doesn't the figure skaters head twist off?
>
> You've said that the theoretical spin is fastest towards the
> center. You've also said that spin increases as the area
> decreases. The head encircles less area than do the
outstreched
> hands so why doesn't her head twist off??
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You ask why the chicken crossed the road? Is this the BEST you
can do, Paul? Her head is attached, quite firmly, to her body,
that's why. Ask the figure skater whether there is tension in her
neck muscles as she spins. You KNOW the answer and are just
arguing to argue, not wanting us to have the last word. Can you
do no better than that?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5afcv9$d9k$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
writes:
> I then asked why I could not diminish the tangents to zero?
>
> What is so special about zero that I cannot use it.
> Don't the Zetas believe in the number zero.
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're digressing by trying to micro-focus the discussion on
zero. NO, during discussions where triangles are drawn in space
to delineate two different possible forward planetary motions,
one side is NOT zero. The reason is obvious. If one side were
zero, then there would be no possibility for more than one
motion, as you would be dealing with a straight line, not a
triangle. Now we expect Paul to return and ask why a planet can't
move in a straight line, which is not our statement at all. He
would be doing this, as with all these silly responses, just to
be posting SOMETHING in response to our statements. Can you do no
better than this, Paul?
We will ask our emissary, Nancy, to respost our SPIN
commentary so that the readership can remember where you were at
the beginning, before you started fussing over dust and fly specs
in an attempt to avoid the obvious - telling us that our posting
was brilliant, and utterly correct.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5afcv9$d9k$1@news.sas.ab.ca> Paul Campbell
writes:
> Also what exactly did you mean by the moment before?
> Was it 3 nanoseconds or 3 months? What do you define as
> the moment before and why is that number significant?
> scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What! You deal with factors in your equations that can have ANY
NUMBER of possible values, and you can't conceive of
"moment" being in that category? Fine, if you insist on
trying to pretend you're crippled in this way and can't proceed
unless we say, "for instance, a month". Now we expect
Paul to say he can't conceptualize the situation unless we break
it down into nano-seconds, and then we'll have a discussion on
who the nano-seconds differ from one month to the next, depending
upon calendar year and month assigned. Anything to hide the fact
that we're RIGHT in our description on SPIN, and Paul's just
jealous because he didn't think of it first.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])