Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423212

Re: The Rule Of 72

Path csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:19:00 -0500
Message-ID <594AC6AE.7D61@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:19:10 -0700
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 sci.math, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.arts.sf.written, alt.astronomy
Subject Re: The Rule Of 72
References <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com> <oi5q6q$1oip$1@gioia.aioe.org> <PM0005523BFFEC5FCC@aca43d4d.ipt.aol.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com> <oi5q6q$1oip$1@gioia.aioe.org> <PM0005523BFFEC5FCC@aca43d4d.ipt.aol.com> <oi6hiq$2p5$1@dont-email.me> <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>
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Antivirus Avast (VPS 170620-2, 06/20/2017), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status Clean
Lines 41
X-Usenet-Provider http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host 108.219.229.47
X-Trace sv3-U94dXy29BNcxZrTBDNKkjDx8cG4VxhrBe9l8J8h8Xg/U8Ga44ZikG9Mpwzl+j3+/TnrzLjiNEtJXOIt!cZeOj7J4MgHpAaEU671bS1RmXMu8hQa0/NzcDsQRjxkNV9uE3F+FF+Es/WaBGL89faS8CeIee+cN!HCLHV3F4RKw=
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 2834
Xref csiph.com sci.math:377526 sci.physics:637186 sci.physics.relativity:423212 rec.arts.sf.written:473662 alt.astronomy:291600

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

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.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-16 10:27 -0700
  Re: The Rule Of 72 William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-06-18 00:46 -0700
    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
    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 Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:46 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +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

csiph-web