I think Ed accidentally sent this to me, Sso I've forwarded it (I
understand that you are right about the lightening oddly enough)
--------------48457D8E1E61609B23928A71
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <EdTulip@aol.com>
Delivered-To: antigrav@a.pop.ihug.co.nz
Received: (qmail 27826 invoked from network); 21 Oct 1999 04:43:47 -0000
Received: from mx2-1.ihug.co.nz (HELO mx2.ihug.co.nz) (203.29.168.197)
by bob.ihug.co.nz with SMTP; 21 Oct 1999 04:43:47 -0000
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]
by mx2.ihug.co.nz with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian))
id 11eA4o-0002SP-00; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:43:46 +1300
Received: from EdTulip@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id cNKAa19941 (4247)
for <antigrav@ihug.co.nz> Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:43:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: EdTulip@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.45810148.253ff3db@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:43:07 EDT
Subject: Re: Un-scientific definitions
To: antigrav@ihug.co.nz
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 86
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Dear Jerry and all,
Yes this is really a ridiculous argument. The term "North" IS a definition
or standard. They could have called it "Afrtyung" and if that was the
accepted word definition, that's it.
All I was saying is that north is a very well defined definition in any
reference sphere and on all maps, etc. And, conversely, south is defined as
the opposite pole.
Similarly, the definition of positive and negative confuses many people. My
understanding is that the flow of electrons is from the negative to the
positive, so, that for example, in a negative ground automobile, the actual
flow of electrons is from the metal of the engine block and body back to the
positive pole of the battery. Again, I think this totally confuses the
average person.
Also, the flow of electrons in lightning actually travels from the surface of
the earth to the sky, not "striking" down from above as most people believe.
If I'm wrong, let me know. I'm sorry if I'm missing some of the "thread" of
some of this. And hopefully not being rude about this, once something is a
definition it should be maintained until and unless there is a true
breakthough of theory that totally disproves the existing theory. ???
--------------48457D8E1E61609B23928A71--
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------