I realize that not everything in print is 'the truth', but National
Geographic is historically not the type of publication to print articles =
on
'fringe' technology. And, if I remember correctly, these studies were
conducted at the Fermi Lab; which in my book, gives them credit for two
things, even if their findings are 'false':
1) As a scientific organization steeped in the 'conventional', they are
committed to finding, and reporting 'truth', even if it goes against the
grain of 'convention', and:
2) They must have been pretty sure of their findings, to allow a reporter
to cover this story.
And all that, presupposes that they were not 'disseminating
misinformation', for whatever purpose people choose to 'lie' about stuff.
All I can say is that the article I read was quite convincing.
Stephen Brummitt
dev@icx.net
____________________________________________________________________
At 01:55 AM 9/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>I read in an National Geographic article, about two years ago, that
>>with new 'ultra-sensitive' testing equipment, Galileo=92s experiment
>>with small masses and large masses falling at the same velocity, has
>>been proven false!
>
>
>I have not heard of this, but when you start getting into the fringes of
>ultra sensitive equipment I become skeptical, I have seen too many times
>where measuring or equipment sensitivity error was the cause of a
>phenomenon.
>
>>In order for the larger mass to slow down, relative to the smaller
>>mass, it must be encountering =91something=92, in the Eather.
>
>
>Didn't someone suggest here about the gravity affecting the atoms of the
>feather and of the bowling ball to be identical and cumulatively that is=
why
>they fall the same rate in a vacuum?
>=20