Groups > sci.physics > #536559 > unrolled thread

Name three fundamental invisible things

Started by	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post	2015-11-30 15:43 -0600
Last post	2015-12-05 04:47 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 32 — 12 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

  Name three fundamental invisible things Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 15:43 -0600
    Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-30 13:58 -0800
      Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 23:16 +0100
    Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:22 -0800
      Re: Name three fundamental invisible things benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 19:23 -0500
    Re: Name three fundamental invisible things jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 22:44 +0000
    Re: Name three fundamental invisible things benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 19:21 -0500
    Name three fundamental invisible things HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 05:02 -0800
      Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:02 +0100
        Re: Name three fundamental invisible things HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:36 -0800
          Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:58 +0100
            Re: Name three fundamental invisible things HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:13 -0800
              Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:36 +0100
                Re: Name three fundamental invisible things HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:41 -0800
              Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:48 -0800
    Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:38 -0800
      Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 12:49 -0600
        Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 11:37 -0800
          Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 13:43 -0600
            Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 12:09 -0800
              Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 14:38 -0800
                Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 11:56 -0800
            Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-01 23:12 -0500
        Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 18:03 -0800
          Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 20:31 -0600
          Re: Name three fundamental invisible things HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 06:13 -0800
            Re: Name three fundamental invisible things benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:04 -0500
          Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 09:14 -0600
            Re: Name three fundamental invisible things benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:20 -0500
            Re: Name three fundamental invisible things Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-03 15:56 -0800
              Re: Mr. Gravity doesn't get exhausted, pushing stuff. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-04 14:14 -0800
    Re: Name three fundamental invisible things "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 04:47 -0800

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#536559 — Name three fundamental invisible things

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-11-30 15:43 -0600
Subject	Name three fundamental invisible things
Message-ID	<G8qdnTbvbohrX8HLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

Name three fundamental invisible things.

OK -- Space, time and gravity.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#536563

From	Double-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date	2015-11-30 13:58 -0800
Message-ID	<982e000d-6f21-4ff7-b886-3e03a0dde56a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536559

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Name three fundamental invisible things.
> 
> OK -- Space, time and gravity.
> 


How about Global Warming?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536568

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date	2015-11-30 23:16 +0100
Message-ID	<n3ihn7$gpu$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#536563

Dne 30/11/2015 v 22:58 Double-A napsal(a):
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Name three fundamental invisible things.
>>
>> OK -- Space, time and gravity.
>>
> 
> How about Global Warming?

Neither three nor fundamental nor invisible nor thing.
But it is at least name, so partial success.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536572

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2015-11-30 14:22 -0800
Message-ID	<958e2276-3f3d-45bb-89ae-92b59f0c296b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536559

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Name three fundamental invisible things.
> 
> OK -- Space, time and gravity.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

The complete particles that exist before a colider smashes them into their building blocks.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536610

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2015-11-30 19:23 -0500
Message-ID	<TL57y.231990$fC2.117847@fx03.iad>
In reply to	#536572

On 11/30/2015 05:22 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Name three fundamental invisible things.
>>
>> OK -- Space, time and gravity.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> The complete particles that exist before a colider smashes them into their building blocks.TreBert
>

I just KNEW this post would be great!  Herb never disappoints!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536586

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2015-11-30 22:44 +0000
Message-ID	<s20vic-si9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#536559

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Name three fundamental invisible things.
> 
> OK -- Space, time and gravity.
 
Your courtesy.
Your humanity.
Your discussion.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536609

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2015-11-30 19:21 -0500
Message-ID	<DK57y.231989$fC2.71598@fx03.iad>
In reply to	#536559

On 11/30/2015 04:43 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Name three fundamental invisible things.
>
> OK -- Space, time and gravity.

Ok, Sam now name three fantasy things that DO NOT exist!

OK-- points, lines, and infinity.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536704

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 05:02 -0800
Message-ID	<b8d8bb87-2f64-4273-ac29-1470316ed5ab@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536559

If it can be perceived, is it truly invisible?

Or did you mean invisible to unaided human eyes?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536722

From	Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 17:02 +0100
Message-ID	<n3kg5s$pe0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#536704

On 12/01/2015 02:02 PM, HVAC wrote:
> If it can be perceived, is it truly invisible?
> 
> Or did you mean invisible to unaided human eyes?
> 

Do you mean the thing itself,
or its projection visible for humans ?

Persons in dark are not visible, if you watch them
by IR night vision system. They are still invisible,
visible are their projections.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536733

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 08:36 -0800
Message-ID	<c2e55301-b087-419a-a850-4ecf93636250@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536722

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:02:24 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 02:02 PM, HVAC wrote:
> > If it can be perceived, is it truly invisible?
> > 
> > Or did you mean invisible to unaided human eyes?
> > 
> 
> Do you mean the thing itself,
> or its projection visible for humans ?
> 
> Persons in dark are not visible, if you watch them
> by IR night vision system. They are still invisible,
> visible are their projections.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )


Foolish solipsism. Even 'visible' light seen by humans is merely your brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536742

From	Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 17:58 +0100
Message-ID	<n3kjeu$6n8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#536733

On 12/01/2015 05:36 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:02:24 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 12/01/2015 02:02 PM, HVAC wrote:
>>> If it can be perceived, is it truly invisible?
>>>
>>> Or did you mean invisible to unaided human eyes?
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean the thing itself,
>> or its projection visible for humans ?
>>
>> Persons in dark are not visible, if you watch them
>> by IR night vision system. They are still invisible,
>> visible are their projections.
>>
>> -- 
>> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> 
> Foolish solipsism. Even 'visible' light seen by humans is merely your brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.

Rather foolish objection.

Being visible IS brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.

It does not matter if nerve is triggered by light from your body
or your picture on the screen of IR vision device.

In the former case your body is visible,
in the latter case your projection is visible.

Being detectable is another thing.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention
of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument,
and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536746

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 09:13 -0800
Message-ID	<206f239e-5fee-4166-8109-3a10f3d13cd1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536742

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:58:26 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 05:36 PM, HVAC wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:02:24 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2015 02:02 PM, HVAC wrote:
> >>> If it can be perceived, is it truly invisible?
> >>>
> >>> Or did you mean invisible to unaided human eyes?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you mean the thing itself,
> >> or its projection visible for humans ?
> >>
> >> Persons in dark are not visible, if you watch them
> >> by IR night vision system. They are still invisible,
> >> visible are their projections.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> > 
> > 
> > Foolish solipsism. Even 'visible' light seen by humans is merely your brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
> 
> Rather foolish objection.
> 
> Being visible IS brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.


So then time, gravity and anything else we know about is visible?

Again, let's debate what the meaning of IS is

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536754

From	Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 18:36 +0100
Message-ID	<n3klmn$glc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#536746

On 12/01/2015 06:13 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:58:26 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:

>>>
>>> Foolish solipsism. Even 'visible' light seen by humans is merely your brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
>>
>> Rather foolish objection.
>>
>> Being visible IS brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
> 
> 
> So then time, gravity and anything else we know about is visible?

No, No, it depends.
> 
> Again, let's debate what the meaning of IS is

In this context it is a definition.

In more philosofical context,
it is rather Out of context of sci.physics.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536757

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 09:41 -0800
Message-ID	<ee33e93a-214b-464c-976e-cd470f067e1b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536754

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:36:42 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 06:13 PM, HVAC wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:58:26 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>> Foolish solipsism. Even 'visible' light seen by humans is merely your brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
> >>
> >> Rather foolish objection.
> >>
> >> Being visible IS brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
> > 
> > 
> > So then time, gravity and anything else we know about is visible?
> 
> No, No, it depends.
> > 
> > Again, let's debate what the meaning of IS is
> 
> In this context it is a definition.
> 
> In more philosofical context,
> it is rather Out of context of sci.physics.


As Moderator Emeritus of this group, I have been known to bend the rules upon occasion. And the philosophy of physics is fair game in any event.

Please note that I meant no disrespect in my original reply re: solipsism

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536760

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 09:48 -0800
Message-ID	<5995f912-5293-40f6-9ade-8cc30d64b4fd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536746

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:13:08 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:58:26 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> > On 12/01/2015 05:36 PM, HVAC wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:02:24 PM UTC, Poutnik wrote:
> > >> On 12/01/2015 02:02 PM, HVAC wrote:
> > >>> If it can be perceived, is it truly invisible?
> > >>>
> > >>> Or did you mean invisible to unaided human eyes?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Do you mean the thing itself,
> > >> or its projection visible for humans ?
> > >>
> > >> Persons in dark are not visible, if you watch them
> > >> by IR night vision system. They are still invisible,
> > >> visible are their projections.
> > >>
> > >> -- 
> > >> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Foolish solipsism. Even 'visible' light seen by humans is merely your brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
> > 
> > Rather foolish objection.
> > 
> > Being visible IS brain's interpretation of signals from the optic nerve.
> 
> 
> So then time, gravity and anything else we know about is visible?
> 
> Again, let's debate what the meaning of IS is

Brain works only by electric waves.Nerves do the conducting.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536780

From	"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 10:38 -0800
Message-ID	<616f692e-8105-4c9e-9458-c2416f750e4b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536559

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Name three fundamental invisible things.

  For the purposes of this discussion, please define "visible".


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536782

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 12:49 -0600
Message-ID	<8_6dndsl3JkrdsDLnZ2dnUU7-K0AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#536780

On 12/1/15 12:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Name three fundamental invisible things.
>
>    For the purposes of this discussion, please define "visible".
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>

   Phenomena that we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch seems like a
   reasonable definition of "visible" for the sake of discussion. I think
   it was Neil deGrasse Tyson that pointed out that space, time and
   gravity are invisible.

   In the case of gravity we can't feel it, but we can feel the earth,
   chair, floor, whatever pushing up on us. In free fall--no can't tell
   if there is gravitation or not.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536788

From	"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 11:37 -0800
Message-ID	<0ee0518b-50fa-4b6e-90e9-aaa5cf09ed33@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536782

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:49:30 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/1/15 12:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Name three fundamental invisible things.
> >
> >    For the purposes of this discussion, please define "visible".
> 
>    Phenomena that we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch seems like a
>    reasonable definition of "visible" for the sake of discussion.

  Thank you.

  By that definition, most of the Universe is invisible to our pathetically limited sensorium.

>    I think it was Neil deGrasse Tyson that pointed out that space, time and
>    gravity are invisible.
>    In the case of gravity we can't feel it, but we can feel the earth,
>    chair, floor, whatever pushing up on us.

  Then Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong. I will point out that you only mentioned five of our senses- we have several more. The saccules in our inner ears exist to feel gravity, independently of the skin-based sense of touch used to feel the pressure of a floor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccule

> In free fall--no can't tell if there is gravitation or not.

  Sure you can. Place your body in the "attention" posture. Your body's long axis will slowly align with the local gravitational vector (even when you're in orbit). You won't be able to tell which way is down unless two people do it within sight of each other. Left as an exercise is explaining why two people are necessary.

  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536790

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 13:43 -0600
Message-ID	<8_6dndQl3Jn3ZcDLnZ2dnUU7-K0AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#536788

On 12/1/15 1:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:49:30 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 12/1/15 12:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Name three fundamental invisible things.
>>>
>>>     For the purposes of this discussion, please define "visible".
>>
>>     Phenomena that we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch seems like a
>>     reasonable definition of "visible" for the sake of discussion.
>
>    Thank you.
>
>    By that definition, most of the Universe is invisible to our pathetically limited sensorium.
>
>>     I think it was Neil deGrasse Tyson that pointed out that space, time and
>>     gravity are invisible.
>>     In the case of gravity we can't feel it, but we can feel the earth,
>>     chair, floor, whatever pushing up on us.
>
>    Then Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong. I will point out that you only mentioned five of our senses- we have several more. The saccules in our inner ears exist to feel gravity, independently of the skin-based sense of touch used to feel the pressure of a floor.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccule
>
>> In free fall--no can't tell if there is gravitation or not.
>
>    Sure you can. Place your body in the "attention" posture. Your body's long axis will slowly align with the local gravitational vector (even when you're in orbit). You won't be able to tell which way is down unless two people do it within sight of each other. Left as an exercise is explaining why two people are necessary.
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>

    Good -- Thank you, Mark.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#536794

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2015-12-01 12:09 -0800
Message-ID	<346ede2e-9a59-45a7-95c2-2929c9f17987@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#536790

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/1/15 1:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:49:30 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 12/1/15 12:38 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>> Name three fundamental invisible things.
> >>>
> >>>     For the purposes of this discussion, please define "visible".
> >>
> >>     Phenomena that we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch seems like a
> >>     reasonable definition of "visible" for the sake of discussion.
> >
> >    Thank you.
> >
> >    By that definition, most of the Universe is invisible to our
> >pathetically limited sensorium.

I think pathetically is a bit too cruel regards our natural limitations.

> >>     I think it was Neil deGrasse Tyson that pointed out that space, time and
> >>     gravity are invisible.
> >>     In the case of gravity we can't feel it, but we can feel the earth,
> >>     chair, floor, whatever pushing up on us.
> >
> >    Then Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong. I will point out that you
> >only mentioned five of our senses- we have several more. The
> >saccules in our inner ears exist to feel gravity, independently of
> >the skin-based sense of touch used to feel the pressure of a floor.

Modern Neil deGrasse Tyson types did to Pluto what OneStone did to
erections lasting more than four hours. Strange Universe this is. 
Missing you hanson Hanson HANSON. Did they get to you hanson?!

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccule
> >
> >> In free fall--no can't tell if there is gravitation or not.

Learn to write Sam, and stop cut and pasting links you never read.

> >    Sure you can. Place your body in the "attention" posture. Your
> >body's long axis will slowly align with the local gravitational
> >vector (even when you're in orbit). You won't be able to tell which
> >way is down unless two people do it within sight of each
> >other. Left as an exercise is explaining why two people are
> >necessary.
> >
> >    Mark L. Fergerson
> >
>     Good -- Thank you, Mark.

There you have it Mark, you get an A- from Sam Worm Liar! Email your
hyper linkedin resume/CV address to ...youKnow. GE is hiring the young
ones. And only. Like all corporations, sponsored by GEICO, else.

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Yes I digress, ergo the discussion."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

Name three fundamental invisible things

Contents

#536559 — Name three fundamental invisible things

#536563

#536568

#536572

#536610

#536586

#536609

#536704

#536722

#536733

#536742

#536746

#536754

#536757

#536760

#536780

#536782

#536788

#536790

#536794