Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Message-ID | <594AC6AE.7D61@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 12:19 -0700 |
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
| Newsgroups | sci.math, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.arts.sf.written, alt.astronomy |
| Subject | Re: The Rule Of 72 |
| References | (16 earlier) <PM0005524F97315FF5@aca4299c.ipt.aol.com> <59480DFB.46CB@ix.netcom.com> <PM0005526355C9A503@aca43d9f.ipt.aol.com> <594930F4.7BE0@ix.netcom.com> <PM000552780B86337B@aca4471d.ipt.aol.com> |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
jmfbahciv wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> > >> [some newsgroups elided] > > <snip> > > > Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read: 299,792,459 > > > > > > somebody must have made a mistake somewhere... > > > > (i was wondering how that "8" got in there...) > > The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted. > > /BAH i think you said it was numerlogy and not an accounting trick, so...it's all about the number "9" in the world of numerology. In numerolgy the number "9" it always becomes a 9 using some sort of trick. if that is the case then the speed of light should read: 299,792,459 maybe you just don't know ...numerology. The fact that you didn't understand anything I wrote is noted. You might know math but you don't know your numbers.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-16 10:27 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2017-06-16 11:05 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-06-18 00:46 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-18 07:03 -0500
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-18 13:21 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-18 18:42 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-18 14:18 -0500
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-19 12:43 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-19 08:45 -0500
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-19 12:43 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 10:46 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 20:01 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:28 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-21 12:19 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-22 12:28 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 08:58 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-23 11:40 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 10:11 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-24 11:40 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-24 09:12 -0700
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-20 14:54 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 14:07 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2017-06-18 12:38 -0400
Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
Re: The Rule Of 72 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-18 16:07 -0700
csiph-web