home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!svc.portal.com!shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
- From: hfinney@shell.portal.com (Hal)
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo
- Subject: Re: More Hill-bashing
- Date: 7 Jun 1996 15:00:35 -0700
- Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
- Lines: 19
- Message-ID: <4pa8q3$fdp@jobe.shell.portal.com>
- References: <31aa32c6.593354@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4ovom2$kdc@agate.berkeley.edu> <31b378ad.35503680@news.primenet.com> <31B425D3.167EB0E7@plhp002.comm.mot.com> <4p40f0$ont@macondo.dmu.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
- Xref: news.demon.co.uk sci.skeptic:68787 alt.alien.visitors:85836 alt.paranet.ufo:52056
-
- Sorry to add to this semantic debate, but I am reading Hill's book and he
- does explain at one point why he calls his hypothetical field an
- "acceleration field". This is on page 219:
-
- "At this point it must be made perfectly clear that, while UFO fields
- have been called force fields because of their effect on mass, UFO fields
- are actually acceleration fields. This is directly analogous to gravity
- fields which cause weight because they are acceleration fields. To be
- specific, the inverse-square force field term K/r**2 is force per unit
- mass, which must have units of acceleration."
-
- So apparently Hill uses the term "acceleration field" simply because
- the units of the field are units of acceleration. Perhaps our physics
- experts could comment on whether this is true about the units.
-
- It's hardly a big deal, but I am surprised to see so much criticism of
- the phrase.
-
- Hal Finney
-
