Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460339 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-04 16:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 08:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 565 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 00:16 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 13:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 22:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 02:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 06:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 05:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:00 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 11:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 15:25 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 12:05 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:10 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 05:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 06:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 14:00 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-06 17:22 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 07:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 21:27 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 08:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 06:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 14:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:38 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 07:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 10:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:51 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 16:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 06:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:46 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 16:50 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-08 16:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 14:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 22:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 05:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 13:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 08:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 06:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 09:46 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 07:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 09:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 19:18 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 04:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 05:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 14:04 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 13:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:19 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 08:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 08:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 08:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-12 12:26 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 12:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 15:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-13 11:11 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 17:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 22:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 04:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 14:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 08:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 16:13 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 13:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Pasquale Broman <lqs@basq.ce> - 2018-06-13 20:43 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 13:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Pasquale Broman <lqs@basq.ce> - 2018-06-13 21:26 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 13:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 18:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 14:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 08:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 15:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 18:28 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 19:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 22:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 04:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 05:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 19:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 19:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 05:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 11:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 11:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-16 05:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:18 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-16 17:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 18:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 02:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 06:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 15:44 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 09:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 18:16 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-17 16:46 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-17 14:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 09:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-18 09:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 17:26 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 17:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 14:04 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 14:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 22:43 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 22:47 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 08:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 12:12 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 17:18 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 09:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 05:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 09:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 09:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 07:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-17 14:40 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 17:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 11:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 09:08 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 09:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-17 17:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:14 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 13:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 22:23 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 06:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 15:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 08:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-18 17:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 17:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 11:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 12:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 20:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 07:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:26 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 18:14 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 11:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 06:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 06:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 07:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 21:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-23 04:42 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 00:20 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 22:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 14:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 22:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 22:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 02:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 00:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 01:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 06:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 07:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 06:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 13:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 15:07 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 09:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 16:07 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 11:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 11:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 15:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 22:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 16:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 06:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-03 14:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-03 21:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 14:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-07 15:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 14:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 17:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 20:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-04 06:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 09:30 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 06:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 09:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 15:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 14:21 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 12:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 15:31 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 16:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 21:07 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 09:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-07 17:33 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 20:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-06 14:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 00:51 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-07 17:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 06:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 06:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 07:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 08:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 08:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 22:06 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 17:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 17:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 15:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 05:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 05:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 02:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 15:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 09:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-17 10:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 12:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 23:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 00:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 09:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 22:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 00:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 00:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 03:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 02:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 07:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 07:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 09:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 18:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 02:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 14:32 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 05:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-06 15:41 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 17:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 02:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:46 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 09:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-23 17:28 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 15:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 15:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 22:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 00:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:58 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-22 14:02 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 14:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 08:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 16:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 14:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-23 14:55 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 06:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 14:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-24 17:50 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 09:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 17:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 22:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 17:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:12 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 06:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:33 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 12:18 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 07:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-12 12:16 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 17:26 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-10 21:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 17:47 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-10 21:51 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 06:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 10:42 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 08:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-11 18:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 16:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 01:47 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 06:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 15:10 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 07:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 18:20 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 12:37 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-12 12:19 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 19:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 05:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 12:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 17:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:39 -0700
OT: programming languages in physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-13 12:07 -0500
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 15:33 -0700
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-14 11:24 -0500
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocowak.br> - 2018-06-14 16:47 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-14 22:02 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-14 20:43 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-14 23:18 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-14 22:11 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-15 00:32 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-15 14:40 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:51 -0700
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-16 12:40 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 13:44 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 11:48 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 13:52 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-16 15:59 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 14:10 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:00 -0400
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 17:22 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 03:31 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-17 11:41 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 09:05 -0400
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 15:56 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 10:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 09:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 17:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 11:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 11:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-18 22:33 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 12:03 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 17:42 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 02:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-22 11:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 08:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-22 22:56 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 00:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-24 18:19 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-24 12:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-25 19:22 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-25 11:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-25 21:48 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 06:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-27 20:40 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 06:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 01:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 06:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 08:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 09:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 09:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 13:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 14:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 06:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 06:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-30 23:21 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 19:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 03:42 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-01 07:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 15:19 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 13:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-01 10:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 15:24 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-30 16:39 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-30 17:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-02 18:46 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 10:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 18:04 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-03 20:46 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-25 19:40 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 18:25 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 12:45 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:54 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 09:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 11:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 21:02 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 06:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 08:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 08:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 16:12 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 14:33 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 16:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 00:35 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 13:17 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-24 07:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 09:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:07 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-25 11:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 06:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-26 13:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 14:29 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 17:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 17:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 01:38 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-27 07:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 14:40 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 07:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 14:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 08:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 16:09 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 11:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 07:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 16:02 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 14:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 21:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 15:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 06:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 06:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 13:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 15:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 22:11 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-03 22:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 09:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 15:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 16:51 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 09:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 13:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 21:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 06:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 17:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 06:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 15:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 22:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 03:44 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 13:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-01 09:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 17:03 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 18:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 14:48 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 10:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 07:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 18:31 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 12:49 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 17:54 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:26 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 06:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-10 19:22 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 13:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 18:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-07 11:09 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-07 16:49 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-07 13:23 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-08 18:40 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 13:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 05:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:22 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 06:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-06 18:01 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 05:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:43 -0700
Page 9 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 29 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pg65dp$tdn$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #461535 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:30:51 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> > > The relevant phenomena are >> > > 1. Conservation of angular momentum >> > > 2. Conservation of energy >> > These concepts are not relevant to our discussion. >> Are you stating that these concepts are INVALID??? Since any discussion >> of orbital mechanics begins with those concepts as given facts. >No I am saying that conservation of angular momentum is valid only there >is no applied force. same with conservation of energy. Conservation of angular momentum is ALWAYS valid. It is essentially a law of physics, it has never been observed to be violated. Same with conservation of energy. In a closed system, the total angular momentum and energy never changes. This is regardless of internal forces. The earth-moon system is a closed system, so the total angular momentum and energy cannot change. >In our discussion there is a constant attractive gravitational force >between the earth and the moon, so these concepts are not valid in our >discussion. You don't get to invent new rules to try to salvage your own failed hypothesis. Conservation of angular momentum and energy ALWAYS applies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pg68el$171g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461535 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:30:51 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:36:04 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:53:53 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:40:17 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> So what caused the moon to have sideway motion to begin with 4 billion years ago? >>>>> Why is this sideway motion is maintain for 4 billion years when >>>>> attractive gravity is constantly pulling it (he moon) toward the center of the earth? >>>>> Don’t you think that there exists a repulsive effect to cancel out >>>>> some of the attractive force of gravity and that’s why the moon is >>>>> able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth? >>>> >>>> The relevant phenomena are >>>> 1. Conservation of angular momentum >>>> 2. Conservation of energy >>> >>> These concepts are not relevant to our discussion. >> >> Are you stating that these concepts are INVALID??? Since any discussion >> of orbital mechanics begins with those concepts as given facts. > > No I am saying that conservation of angular momentum is valid only there > is no applied force. same with conservation of energy. That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in conflict with first year elementary physics. > In our discussion there is a constant attractive gravitational force > between the earth and the moon, so these concepts are not valid in our discussion. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41333e91-8062-4c90-890c-6fbcebbf7716@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461542 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:30:51 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 8:36:04 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:53:53 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:40:17 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>>>> So what caused the moon to have sideway motion to begin with 4 billion years ago? > >>>>> Why is this sideway motion is maintain for 4 billion years when > >>>>> attractive gravity is constantly pulling it (he moon) toward the center of the earth? > >>>>> Don’t you think that there exists a repulsive effect to cancel out > >>>>> some of the attractive force of gravity and that’s why the moon is > >>>>> able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth? > >>>> > >>>> The relevant phenomena are > >>>> 1. Conservation of angular momentum > >>>> 2. Conservation of energy > >>> > >>> These concepts are not relevant to our discussion. > >> > >> Are you stating that these concepts are INVALID??? Since any discussion > >> of orbital mechanics begins with those concepts as given facts. > > > > No I am saying that conservation of angular momentum is valid only there > > is no applied force. same with conservation of energy. > > That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > conflict with first year elementary physics. So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > > > In our discussion there is a constant attractive gravitational force > > between the earth and the moon, so these concepts are not valid in our discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-17 22:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b26c32e$0$20311$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #461549 |
kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: ... >> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >> conflict with first year elementary physics. > > So say an uneducated moron woodworker. Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr Seto? Ken Seto wrote: > If I have the following term in my equation: > Sqrt*(Faa^2-Fab^2) > > If Fab^2 is larger than Faa^2 will the minus sign carries > with it? In other words, if Faa^2 is equal to 4 and Fab^2 is > equal to 25 will this term becomes sqrt (-20) and thus becomes -4.472? > > Thanks for your help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 06:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <395f68e6-8e6f-4dd9-9554-c1a30a53a325@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461551 |
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > ... > >> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > >> conflict with first year elementary physics. > > > > So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > > Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. > > You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in > the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr > Seto? Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and experiments say it can’t. That’s why I invented DTG. DTG says that there are two forces acting on the moon: 1. An attractive EM force of gravity derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. 2. A repulsive tangential force due to that the earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. 3. The competition of these opposing forces enables the moon maintains a stable orbit around the earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pg8k1k$13p2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461606 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> ... >>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. >>> >>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. >> >> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >> >> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >> Seto? > > Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a > circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the > moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea how science works. All you care about is what you WANT science to do, rather than what it really does. > He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity > alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and > experiments say it can’t. Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. Idiot. > > That’s why I invented DTG. DTG says that there are two forces acting on the moon: > 1. An attractive EM force of gravity derived from the fact that the earth > and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > 2. A repulsive tangential force due to that the earth and the moon are > confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > 3. The competition of these opposing forces enables the moon maintains a > stable orbit around the earth. > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <739a6598-b90d-4c1d-8e98-5b4c72af3615@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461616 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> ... > >>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > >>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. > >>> > >>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > >> > >> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. > >> > >> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in > >> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr > >> Seto? > > > > Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a > > circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the > > moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. > > And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea > how science works. Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. Gravity in Newton’s equation is not a single force, it is a composite force. It is time you bunch of idiot fanatics to learn some new ideas. > > All you care about is what you WANT science to do, rather than what it > really does. > > > He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity > > alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and > > experiments say it can’t. > > Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the > ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. No moron, a single attractive force cannot make the moon to follow a stable orbiting motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pg8qo2$b2c$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #461620 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. So Ken, how does it feel to know that you are less knowledgeable than "an uneducated moron woodworker"? >> >> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >> >> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >> >> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >> >> Seto? >> > Newton's calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a >> > circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the >> > moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. >> And with that "irrelevant" comment you continue to show you have NO idea >> how science works. >Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source >of a single attractive force can't make objects orbit around it. Assertion is not evidence, Ken. And besides, Newton PROVED that a single attractive force CAN make objects orbit. Go ahead, prove Newton wrong. Or admit that YOU are wrong. >Gravity in Newton's equation is not a single force, It is. The only force Newton used was the attraction to the central object. > it is a composite force. Assertion is not evidence. > It is time you bunch of idiot fanatics to learn some new ideas. New ideas are only useful if they work. You have already shown that all of your "new ideas" are complete failures. >> Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the >> ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. >No moron, a single attractive force cannot make the moon to follow a stable >orbiting motion. Yet Newton PROVED it does. Your assertions don't change that. Go ahead, prove Newton wrong and I'll personally pay your airfare to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pg8rue$1j7g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461620 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. >>>>> >>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. >>>> >>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >>>> >>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >>>> Seto? >>> >>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a >>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the >>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. >> >> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea >> how science works. > > Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source > of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive force — and they will now orbit each other. I get that you don’t understand it. It is nonetheless true whether you believe it or not. > Gravity in Newton’s equation is not a single force, it is a composite > force. It is time you bunch of idiot fanatics to learn some new ideas. New ideas that come from someone COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED in physics are worthless. That’s why your book has no sales. > >> >> All you care about is what you WANT science to do, rather than what it >> really does. >> >>> He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity >>> alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and >>> experiments say it can’t. >> >> Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the >> ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. > > No moron, a single attractive force cannot make the moon to follow a > stable orbiting motion. > Yes it can. Newton proved that. So show his proof is wrong. Take any case without air friction and do the algebra. If you can’t, your assertion is worthless. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4fe05e8-8625-4879-9b58-849e9904477d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461632 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > >>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > >>>> > >>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. > >>>> > >>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in > >>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr > >>>> Seto? > >>> > >>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a > >>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the > >>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. > >> > >> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea > >> how science works. > > > > Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source > > of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. > > Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each > other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch > to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive > force — and they will now orbit each other. Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. If there is a circular groove around the magnet and I applied a high force to make the ball follow the circular groove then the ball will maintain in orbiting motion around the magnet but after a while the ball will still fall into the magnet. This is similar to a roulette wheel...the ball will not maintain a circular motion forever. Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder you are just a moron woodworker. > > I get that you don’t understand it. It is nonetheless true whether you > believe it or not. > > > Gravity in Newton’s equation is not a single force, it is a composite > > force. It is time you bunch of idiot fanatics to learn some new ideas. > > New ideas that come from someone COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED in physics are > worthless. That’s why your book has no sales. > so fucking stupid.....no wonder you are just a m > >oron woodworker. > >> > >> All you care about is what you WANT science to do, rather than what it > >> really does. > >> > >>> He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity > >>> alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and > >>> experiments say it can’t. > >> > >> Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the > >> ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. > > > > No moron, a single attractive force cannot make the moon to follow a > > stable orbiting motion. > > > > Yes it can. Newton proved that. So show his proof is wrong. Take any case > without air friction and do the algebra. If you can’t, your assertion is > worthless. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b465595-6805-4c46-a8b2-7188029bbc7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461641 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:57:13 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. If there is a circular groove around the magnet and I applied a high force to make the ball follow the circular groove then the ball will maintain in orbiting motion around the magnet but after a while the ball will still fall into the magnet. This is similar to a roulette wheel...the ball will not maintain a circular motion forever. > > Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder you are just a moron woodworker. A magnet is a grossly complex system. For one thing, at long distance, the dipole force follows an inverse cubed relationship, so the orbit will not be closed. At close range, the complexity of the field would make it extremely difficult to find an orbit that will not crash into a finite-sized magnet. However, if you had a dipole comprising two separated point-sized monopoles and a point-sized magnetic particle, then, unless you specifically aimed the particle at one of the poles, that particle should orbit the dipole forever. Conservation laws apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pg95qi$5kv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461641 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. >>>>>> >>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >>>>>> >>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >>>>>> Seto? >>>>> >>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a >>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the >>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. >>>> >>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea >>>> how science works. >>> >>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source >>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. >> >> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each >> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch >> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive >> force — and they will now orbit each other. > > Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t > make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow experimental procedures??? > If there is a circular groove around the magnet and I applied a high > force to make the ball follow the circular groove then the ball will > maintain in orbiting motion around the magnet but after a while the ball > will still fall into the magnet. This is similar to a roulette > wheel...the ball will not maintain a circular motion forever. Idiot! Ball on string eventually slows down because of air friction. Roulette ball eventually slows down because of surface friction. These are sources of friction that are NOT THERE for planetary orbits. Do the test in an experiment where friction is removed and then you will see. > > Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking > stupid.....no wonder you are just a moron woodworker. > >> >> I get that you don’t understand it. It is nonetheless true whether you >> believe it or not. >> >>> Gravity in Newton’s equation is not a single force, it is a composite >>> force. It is time you bunch of idiot fanatics to learn some new ideas. >> >> New ideas that come from someone COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED in physics are >> worthless. That’s why your book has no sales. >> so fucking stupid.....no wonder you are just a m >>> oron woodworker. >>>> >>>> All you care about is what you WANT science to do, rather than what it >>>> really does. >>>> >>>>> He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity >>>>> alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and >>>>> experiments say it can’t. >>>> >>>> Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the >>>> ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. >>> >>> No moron, a single attractive force cannot make the moon to follow a >>> stable orbiting motion. >>> >> >> Yes it can. Newton proved that. So show his proof is wrong. Take any case >> without air friction and do the algebra. If you can’t, your assertion is >> worthless. >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49f4f9c4-3d88-4dfe-858e-c539c2da0ed2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461648 |
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > >>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in > >>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr > >>>>>> Seto? > >>>>> > >>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a > >>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the > >>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. > >>>> > >>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea > >>>> how science works. > >>> > >>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source > >>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. > >> > >> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each > >> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch > >> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive > >> force — and they will now orbit each other. > > > > Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t > > make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. > > Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just > plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow > experimental procedures??? Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit. > > > If there is a circular groove around the magnet and I applied a high > > force to make the ball follow the circular groove then the ball will > > maintain in orbiting motion around the magnet but after a while the ball > > will still fall into the magnet. This is similar to a roulette > > wheel...the ball will not maintain a circular motion forever. > > Idiot! Ball on string eventually slows down because of air friction. > Roulette ball eventually slows down because of surface friction. These are > sources of friction that are NOT THERE for planetary orbits. Do the test in > an experiment where friction is removed and then you will see. Why don’t you do it and let us know? > > > > > Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking > > stupid.....no wonder you are ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgdo7b$1nau$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461822 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >>>>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >>>>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >>>>>>>> Seto? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a >>>>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the >>>>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea >>>>>> how science works. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source >>>>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. >>>> >>>> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each >>>> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch >>>> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive >>>> force — and they will now orbit each other. >>> >>> Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t >>> make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. >> >> Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just >> plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow >> experimental procedures??? > > Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash > into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit. Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table, or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful to remove friction in your experimental tests. Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit was set up. The fragments that had speeds less or more than that fell to earth as meteors or escaped orbit. You didn’t tune the velocity of the balk correctly because you don’t know the physics and do you didn’t know it was important. > >> >>> If there is a circular groove around the magnet and I applied a high >>> force to make the ball follow the circular groove then the ball will >>> maintain in orbiting motion around the magnet but after a while the ball >>> will still fall into the magnet. This is similar to a roulette >>> wheel...the ball will not maintain a circular motion forever. >> >> Idiot! Ball on string eventually slows down because of air friction. >> Roulette ball eventually slows down because of surface friction. These are >> sources of friction that are NOT THERE for planetary orbits. Do the test in >> an experiment where friction is removed and then you will see. > > Why don’t you do it and let us know? It’s been done by others and documented in things you don’t read. Since you don’t read, you’ll have to do it yourself. If simple experimental design is beyond you, then give up on physics. Everyone - and I mean everyone - who has ever made a sizable contribution to physics has mastered these experimental basics. > >> >>> >>> Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking >>> stupid.....no wonder you are ... > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d1025fa-879a-4fae-ab5c-fe84c0e0a7eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461824 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > >>>>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in > >>>>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr > >>>>>>>> Seto? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a > >>>>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the > >>>>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea > >>>>>> how science works. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source > >>>>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. > >>>> > >>>> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each > >>>> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch > >>>> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive > >>>> force — and they will now orbit each other. > >>> > >>> Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t > >>> make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. > >> > >> Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just > >> plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow > >> experimental procedures??? > > > > Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash > > into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit. > > Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table, > or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful > to remove friction in your experimental tests. > > Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made > not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit w... I don’t believe it and since It is your assertion.....why don’t you do it and make a video of it and show us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <304c81e2-6a0a-41f5-b3f0-654466965950@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461896 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 3:09:24 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table, > > or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful > > to remove friction in your experimental tests. > > > > Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made > > not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit w... > > I don’t believe it and since It is your assertion.....why don’t you do it and make a video of it and show us. Excuse me. ***YOU*** are the one claiming that all physics since Newton is based on false premises. It is ***YOU*** who must set up properly ***PROPERLY CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS IN FRICTIONLESS CONDITIONS*** demonstrating the impossibility of achieving repetitive orbits regardless of initial conditions. I would advise you to submit proposals to have your experiments performed outside the ISS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgefo0$113k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461896 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >>>>>>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >>>>>>>>>> Seto? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a >>>>>>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the >>>>>>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea >>>>>>>> how science works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source >>>>>>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each >>>>>> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch >>>>>> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive >>>>>> force — and they will now orbit each other. >>>>> >>>>> Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t >>>>> make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. >>>> >>>> Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just >>>> plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow >>>> experimental procedures??? >>> >>> Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash >>> into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit. >> >> Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table, >> or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful >> to remove friction in your experimental tests. >> >> Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made >> not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit w... > > I don’t believe it and since It is your assertion.....why don’t you do it > and make a video of it and show us. > The disbelief of an uneducated man such as yourself is not particularly compelling. The difference between you and me, Ken, is that I have taken the time and effort to educate myself somewhat, and as a result of that education, I have come to believe some things are true. Some of that education involves seeing well-crafted real-life demonstrations. You on the other hand have not taken any time or effort to educate yourself. And so all you use for deciding what to believe is your common sense and demonstrations you put together with things from your junk drawer. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 18:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7lAWC.233119$o43.8626@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #461914 |
On 6/20/2018 5:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in >>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in >>>>>>>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr >>>>>>>>>>> Seto? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a >>>>>>>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the >>>>>>>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea >>>>>>>>> how science works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source >>>>>>>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each >>>>>>> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch >>>>>>> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive >>>>>>> force — and they will now orbit each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t >>>>>> make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. >>>>> >>>>> Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just >>>>> plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow >>>>> experimental procedures??? >>>> >>>> Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash >>>> into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit. >>> >>> Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table, >>> or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful >>> to remove friction in your experimental tests. >>> >>> Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made >>> not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit w... >> >> I don’t believe it and since It is your assertion.....why don’t you do it >> and make a video of it and show us. >> > > The disbelief of an uneducated man such as yourself is not particularly > compelling. The difference between you and me, Ken, is that I have taken > the time and effort to educate myself somewhat, and as a result of that > education, I have come to believe some things are true. Some of that > education involves seeing well-crafted real-life demonstrations. You on the > other hand have not taken any time or effort to educate yourself. And so > all you use for deciding what to believe is your common sense and > demonstrations you put together with things from your junk drawer. > Notice Odd has only educated himself "somewhat", Kenseto. To Boinker it's all about religion. His high priests tell him what to believe and he sucks it right in and spreads the gospel rote. He forgets that the history of science is a history of screaming errors that were sold as ultimate truth. He can't imagine that nothing has changed in this regard over time. The true test of sciences is not belief or politics but actual measurements. If there are no experiments that agree or disagree with your theories yet, you still might be an idiot, but it's nus nobody knows it yet. Odd's trick is that once you are proven wrong just insist that you never said the previous things you said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59ad9f1e-7761-437d-a8c7-70f2c5e769c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461926 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:14:29 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > Notice Odd has only educated himself "somewhat", Kenseto. To Boinker > it's all about religion. His high priests tell him what to believe and > he sucks it right in and spreads the gospel rote. He forgets that the > history of science is a history of screaming errors that were sold as > ultimate truth. He can't imagine that nothing has changed in this regard > over time. The true test of sciences is not belief or politics but > actual measurements. If there are no experiments that agree or disagree > with your theories yet, you still might be an idiot, but it's nus nobody > knows it yet. Odd's trick is that once you are proven wrong just insist > that you never said the previous things you said. You are an idiot, benj.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2104640d-0e93-47f9-8ce5-846fc715dbe7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461926 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:14:29 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 6/20/2018 5:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in > >>>>>>>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr > >>>>>>>>>>> Seto? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a > >>>>>>>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the > >>>>>>>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea > >>>>>>>>> how science works. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source > >>>>>>>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why, yes, Ken, it can. Take any two objects that are just passing each > >>>>>>> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch > >>>>>>> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive > >>>>>>> force — and they will now orbit each other. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t > >>>>>> make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. > >>>>> > >>>>> Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just > >>>>> plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow > >>>>> experimental procedures??? > >>>> > >>>> Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash > >>>> into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit. > >>> > >>> Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table, > >>> or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful > >>> to remove friction in your experimental tests. > >>> > >>> Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made > >>> not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit w... > >> > >> I don’t believe it and since It is your assertion.....why don’t you do it > >> and make a video of it and show us. > >> > > > > The disbelief of an uneducated man such as yourself is not particularly > > compelling. The difference between you and me, Ken, is that I have taken > > the time and effort to educate myself somewhat, and as a result of that > > education, I have come to believe some things are true. Some of that > > education involves seeing well-crafted real-life demonstrations. You on the > > other hand have not taken any time or effort to educate yourself. And so > > all you use for deciding what to believe is your common sense and > > demonstrations you put together with things from your junk drawer. > > > Notice Odd has only educated himself "somewhat", Kenseto. To Boinker > it's all about religion. His high priests tell him what to believe and > he sucks it right in and spreads the gospel rote. Yeah, he is like a suicide bomber...defends Einstein’s physics at all cost. > He forgets that the > history of science is a history of screaming errors that were sold as > ultimate truth. He can't imagine that nothing has changed in this regard > over time. The true test of sciences is not belief or politics but > actual measurements. If there are no experiments that agree or disagree > with your theories yet, you still might be an idiot, but it's nus nobody > knows it yet. Odd's trick is that once you are proven wrong just insist > that you never said the previous things you said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web