Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376411
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:42:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <56C4B116.7835@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:42:46 -0800 |
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
| Reply-To | starmaker@ix.netcom.com |
| X-Mailer | Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.written, alt.astronomy, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY... |
| References | <56C37C07.5882@ix.netcom.com> <56C4153A.3A1@ix.netcom.com> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Lines | 36 |
| X-Usenet-Provider | http://www.giganews.com |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 162.239.141.5 |
| X-Trace | sv3-yB4T6tPjX04BXnRHv2Nnbft291pIClsoiaFC3Ug/zB9hAccIx4TIY+DKtExnQJKknA+EdNo84iMn72c!QXmuBnAJkX/dQdUQCY8icBVz0CRhpeEd/YNFr9eQLba6mIdVJOY6ygBaNIZZH8asgtCf9pPuBxFl!xV+6QpUayA== |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly |
| X-Postfilter | 1.3.40 |
| X-Original-Bytes | 1850 |
| X-Received-Bytes | 1962 |
| X-Received-Body-CRC | 2839055375 |
| Xref | csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:433428 alt.astronomy:282215 sci.physics:553938 sci.physics.relativity:376411 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > i saw > > a person > > fall down.. > > and i > > wondered to > > myself... > > how many planets > > were involved? > > > > it couldn't have just > > been the moon... > > > > i imagine other > > planets having > > a piece of the > > action. > > It seems that most of yous > are too close to the trees to see the forest... > > yous do understand the Gravity...is 'just a theory'? > > haves yous forgotten?? > > it's...just a theory....just a belief...speculation. > > No one can say Gravity is true. I mean, if you haven't even prove that Gravity exist and is true...how can you find gravity waves? That's like saying there is no God but you know what kind of car he drives.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 11:44 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 14:44 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:26 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 14:27 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 15:54 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:05 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 21:28 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 22:37 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 09:42 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:48 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:29 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:02 -0600
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 23:54 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 03:40 -0500
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0500
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 11:26 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 14:09 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:12 -0600
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 16:29 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:00 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 12:06 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 23:24 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 05:33 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:24 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:55 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:55 +0000
csiph-web