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 13 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 29 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-03 20:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f61f518-056f-48af-8f50-0e1caac9a854@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463387 |
On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 6:02:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > No, the long term issue will primarily be AIR FRICTION. > > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > No, not just air friction. The attractive magnetic force is continuous and the attractive component of the fish line is continuous. The momentum of the pendulum bob is not continuously maintained at full strength because of the attractive force of the magnet and the fishline are continuously pulling on it. Ken, the sole effect of the fishing line is to constrain the motions of the pendulum bob to the surface of a nearly frictionless shallow bowl. 1) Imagine replacing the fishing line with a frictionless shallow bowl. 2) Remove the magnet. According to your theory, the tangential force of gravitation should allow the pendulum bob to slide along the surface of the frictionless bowl FOREVER, the same way that the Moon maintains itself in orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-04 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80793b39-83b8-4133-bf05-0cb7d0385328@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463394 |
On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 11:03:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 6:02:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > No, the long term issue will primarily be AIR FRICTION. > > > > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > AIR FRICTION!!! > > > > No, not just air friction. The attractive magnetic force is continuous and the attractive component of the fish line is continuous. The momentum of the pendulum bob is not continuously maintained at full strength because of the attractive force of the magnet and the fishline are continuously pulling on it. > > Ken, the sole effect of the fishing line is to constrain the motions > of the pendulum bob to the surface of a nearly frictionless shallow bowl. > > 1) Imagine replacing the fishing line with a frictionless shallow bowl. > 2) Remove the magnet. > > According to your theory, the tangential force of gravitation should > allow the pendulum bob to slide along the surface of the frictionless > bowl FOREVER, the same way that the Moon maintains itself in orbit. No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. As you can see these proposed experiments on earth are not good example for the earth moon system. The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because of the following factors: 1. There is an attractive EM force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. This means that when the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction there exists a repulsive effect between them. 3. The combination of the above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-04 09:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <phii4d$dbf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #463416 |
On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 11:03:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 6:02:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >>>> >>>> No, the long term issue will primarily be AIR FRICTION. >>>> >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! >>> >>> No, not just air friction. The attractive magnetic force is continuous and the attractive component of the fish line is continuous. The momentum of the pendulum bob is not continuously maintained at full strength because of the attractive force of the magnet and the fishline are continuously pulling on it. >> >> Ken, the sole effect of the fishing line is to constrain the motions >> of the pendulum bob to the surface of a nearly frictionless shallow bowl. >> >> 1) Imagine replacing the fishing line with a frictionless shallow bowl. >> 2) Remove the magnet. >> >> According to your theory, the tangential force of gravitation should >> allow the pendulum bob to slide along the surface of the frictionless >> bowl FOREVER, the same way that the Moon maintains itself in orbit. > > No Sir, according to my theory: > The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without external influence. Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved Newton's proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df4e80a0-8d26-4e42-a736-4bd902a6f9f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463417 |
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 11:03:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 6:02:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>>> No, the long term issue will primarily be AIR FRICTION. > >>>> > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>>> AIR FRICTION!!! > >>> > >>> No, not just air friction. The attractive magnetic force is continuous and the attractive component of the fish line is continuous. The momentum of the pendulum bob is not continuously maintained at full strength because of the attractive force of the magnet and the fishline are continuously pulling on it. > >> > >> Ken, the sole effect of the fishing line is to constrain the motions > >> of the pendulum bob to the surface of a nearly frictionless shallow bowl. > >> > >> 1) Imagine replacing the fishing line with a frictionless shallow bowl. > >> 2) Remove the magnet. > >> > >> According to your theory, the tangential force of gravitation should > >> allow the pendulum bob to slide along the surface of the frictionless > >> bowl FOREVER, the same way that the Moon maintains itself in orbit. > > > > No Sir, according to my theory: > > The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > > This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. > > No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the air > friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can HEAR the coin > rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the coin! The less > friction there is, the longer the coin will "orbit". If there was no > friction, the coin would "orbit" forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that > with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are > stable and will last forever without external influence. But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling the pendulum toward the center. > > Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved Newton's proof. Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity in Newton’s theory is a composite force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <883a2ec8-446c-4cc3-bf29-bf133c2fc80c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463483 |
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 9:42:49 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > No Sir, according to my theory: > > > The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually > > > and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > > > This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the > > > mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will > > > maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually > > > gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to > > > decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. > > > > No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the air > > friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can HEAR the coin > > rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the coin! The less > > friction there is, the longer the coin will "orbit". If there was no > > friction, the coin would "orbit" forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that > > with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are > > stable and will last forever without external influence. > > But there is external influence: gravity is continually > pulling the pendulum toward the center. Ken, you need to read more carefully: single attractive central force ==> gravity > > > > > Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved Newton's proof. > > Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said > that gravity in Newton’s theory is a composite force? But Newton shows that it is not composite. It is a single force pointing in a single direction (radially). Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe3969cc-ab3a-4a12-a62b-c769f7f32ae6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463509 |
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 12:40:55 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 9:42:49 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > > On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > No Sir, according to my theory: > > > > The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually > > > > and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > > > > This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the > > > > mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will > > > > maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually > > > > gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to > > > > decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. > > > > > > No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the air > > > friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can HEAR the coin > > > rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the coin! The less > > > friction there is, the longer the coin will "orbit". If there was no > > > friction, the coin would "orbit" forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that > > > with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are > > > stable and will last forever without external influence. > > > > But there is external influence: gravity is continually > > pulling the pendulum toward the center. > > Ken, you need to read more carefully: > single attractive central force ==> gravity It is you who need to read more carefully. In the proposed lab experiment, gravity is a single attractive central force. Between the earth and the moon, gravity is a composite force because that’s the reason why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. > > > > > > > > Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved Newton's proof. > > > > Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said > > that gravity in Newton’s theory is a composite force? > > But Newton shows that it is not composite. It is a single force > pointing in a single direction (radially). Newton didn’t show that gravity is not a composite force. He called the composite forces as gravity. Without the composite forces, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 14:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <phlnhi$gsf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #463483 |
On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> No Sir, according to my theory: >>> The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. >>> This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. >> >> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the air >> friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can HEAR the coin >> rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the coin! The less >> friction there is, the longer the coin will "orbit". If there was no >> friction, the coin would "orbit" forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that >> with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are >> stable and will last forever without external influence. > > But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling the pendulum toward the center. And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? > >> >> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved Newton's proof. > > Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity in Newton’s theory is a composite force? Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You need to disprove the "single force" bit, which you haven't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54d959e7-9582-4a59-a5b8-7f8ce0d62e7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463532 |
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> No Sir, according to my theory: > >>> The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > >>> This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. > >> > >> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the air > >> friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can HEAR the coin > >> rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the coin! The less > >> friction there is, the longer the coin will "orbit". If there was no > >> friction, the coin would "orbit" forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that > >> with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are > >> stable and will last forever without external influence. > > > > But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling the pendulum toward the center. > > And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why he's > using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the less gravity > influences the results. The gravity effects can be calculated and > measured (do the experiment without the magnet). This is standard > engineering, which you should know, if you are a former engineer. Did > you forget error analysis already? You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can calculate the external influence. > > > >> > >> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved Newton's proof. > > > > Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity in Newton’s theory is a composite force? > > Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single force > and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You need to > disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't. Newton didn’t PROVED anything. He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force so he assumed that gravity is a single attractive force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 15:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <phlrl3$cu4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #463538 |
On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of >>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob >>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar >>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin >>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some >>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes >>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity >>>>> well at the center of the bowl. >>>> >>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the >>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can >>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the >>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will >>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" >>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive >>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last >>>> forever without external influence. >>> >>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling >>> the pendulum toward the center. >> >> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why >> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the >> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be >> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). >> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a >> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? > > You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can > calculate the external influence. No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. Read what was written. Also gravity by itself would be OK since it is a conservative force. You'd get a weird orbit from both the magnet and gravity if there was no friction. But friction is the killer. > > >>> >>>> >>>> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved >>>> Newton's proof. >>> >>> Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity >>> in Newton’s theory is a composite force? >> >> Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single >> force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You >> need to disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't. > > > Newton didn’t PROVED anything. Yes he did. He PROVED that a single attractive central force such as gravity would lead to stable orbits. > He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force Assertion is not proof of anything, you would have to PROVE that assertion to disprove Newton. His force F=GMm/r^2 is a single attractive force (only one term), and is not composite. > so he assumed that gravity is a single attractive force. No assumption, there is only one term there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56914b76-2dd9-4c00-b09c-faf533184a48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463542 |
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of > >>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob > >>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar > >>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin > >>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some > >>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes > >>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity > >>>>> well at the center of the bowl. > >>>> > >>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the > >>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can > >>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the > >>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will > >>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" > >>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive > >>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last > >>>> forever without external influence. > >>> > >>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling > >>> the pendulum toward the center. > >> > >> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why > >> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the > >> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be > >> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). > >> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a > >> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? > > > > You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can > > calculate the external influence. > > No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force > and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without > external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. > Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. > Read what was written. Answer these questions: 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its tangential momentum to start with? 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does the moon maintains its tangential momentum? If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? > > Also gravity by itself would be OK since it is a conservative force. > You'd get a weird orbit from both the magnet and gravity if there was no > friction. But friction is the killer. > > > > > > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved > >>>> Newton's proof. > >>> > >>> Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity > >>> in Newton’s theory is a composite force? > >> > >> Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single > >> force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You > >> need to disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't. > > > > > > Newton didn’t PROVED anything. > > Yes he did. He PROVED that a single attractive central force such as > gravity would lead to stable orbits. > > > He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force > > Assertion is not proof of anything, you would have to PROVE that > assertion to disprove Newton. His force F=GMm/r^2 is a single attractive > force (only one term), and is not composite. > > > so he assumed > that gravity is a single attractive force. > > No assumption, there is only one term there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <phmfao$sdn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #463571 |
On 7/5/2018 7:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of >>>>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob >>>>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar >>>>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin >>>>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some >>>>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes >>>>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity >>>>>>> well at the center of the bowl. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the >>>>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can >>>>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the >>>>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will >>>>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" >>>>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive >>>>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last >>>>>> forever without external influence. >>>>> >>>>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling >>>>> the pendulum toward the center. >>>> >>>> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why >>>> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the >>>> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be >>>> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). >>>> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a >>>> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? >>> >>> You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can >>> calculate the external influence. >> >> No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force >> and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without >> external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. >> Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. >> Read what was written. > > Answer these questions: > 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its tangential momentum to start with? Depends on how it was formed. It would be really unusual for the mass that formed the moon NOT to have a net angular momentum (like a random number coming up exactly 0), so all that matters that there was momentum that is NOT 0. Last I heard was the current best theory is the Earth collided with a small planet with a glancing blow which blasted a lot of mass into orbit. If so that explains the matter of the moon as well as the source of the orbital momentum. > 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does the moon maintains its tangential momentum? Momentum is a conserved quantity. Unless there is something like friction/air resistance to dissipate it, it lasts forever. No friction or air resistance in space. > If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. Irrelevant since there is nothing to dissipate it so it's always there and won't go away. See Newton's Laws. > 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? Warped spacetime, apparently. Regardless, as long as we know HOW gravity behaves, knowing its cause doesn't really matter. It's like if you know nothing about electricity, but you do know flipping the switch causes the light to come on. Anyway. my point stands. Newton proved stable orbits exist with only one attractive force. If you insist on composite forces, you'll have to find a flaw with Newton's proof and prove it wrong and you are correct. That's a pretty tall order, people have been analyzing Newton's proof for hundreds of years. Good luck!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-07 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9711fc9b-3506-4b4d-a71f-ab1aee10f51e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463579 |
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 9:06:35 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 7/5/2018 7:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of > >>>>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob > >>>>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar > >>>>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin > >>>>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some > >>>>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes > >>>>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity > >>>>>>> well at the center of the bowl. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the > >>>>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can > >>>>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the > >>>>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will > >>>>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" > >>>>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive > >>>>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last > >>>>>> forever without external influence. > >>>>> > >>>>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling > >>>>> the pendulum toward the center. > >>>> > >>>> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why > >>>> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the > >>>> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be > >>>> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). > >>>> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a > >>>> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? > >>> > >>> You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can > >>> calculate the external influence. > >> > >> No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force > >> and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without > >> external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. > >> Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. > >> Read what was written. > > > > Answer these questions: > > 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its tangential momentum to start with? > > Depends on how it was formed. It would be really unusual for the mass > that formed the moon NOT to have a net angular momentum (like a random > number coming up exactly 0), so all that matters that there was momentum > that is NOT 0. So what caused the earth and the moon attract to each other? > > Last I heard was the current best theory is the Earth collided with a > small planet with a glancing blow which blasted a lot of mass into > orbit. If so that explains the matter of the moon as well as the source > of the orbital momentum. > > > 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does the moon maintains its tangential momentum? > > Momentum is a conserved quantity. Unless there is something like > friction/air resistance to dissipate it, it lasts forever. No friction > or air resistance till momentum in space. The direction of the tangential momentum is continuously changing due to the gravity pull of the attractive force between the earth and the moon. So the moon cannot be orbiting the earth forever. > > > If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. > > Irrelevant since there is nothing to dissipate it so it's always there > and won't go away. See Newton’s Laws. Not irrelevant....the tangential momentum is not conserved. > > > 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? > > Warped spacetime, apparently. Regardless, as long as we know HOW gravity > behaves, knowing its cause doesn't really matter. It's like if you know > nothing about electricity, but you do know flipping the switch causes > the light to come on. The cause of gravity does matter. > > Anyway. my point stands. Newton proved stable orbits exist with only one > attractive force. If you insist on composite forces, you'll have to find > a flaw with Newton's proof and prove it wrong and you are correct. > That's a pretty tall order, people have been analyzing Newton's proof > for hundreds of years. Good luck! Newton did not Prove anything about stable orbits because if gravity if a single attractive force then the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-07 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <phqthn$g19$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #463717 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 9:06:35 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/5/2018 7:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > Answer these questions: >> > 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its tangential momentum to start with? >> Depends on how it was formed. It would be really unusual for the mass >> that formed the moon NOT to have a net angular momentum (like a random >> number coming up exactly 0), so all that matters that there was momentum >> that is NOT 0. >So what caused the earth and the moon attract to each other? Gravity. >> > 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does >the moon maintains its tangential momentum? >> Momentum is a conserved quantity. Unless there is something like >> friction/air resistance to dissipate it, it lasts forever. No friction >> or air resistance till momentum in space. >The direction of the tangential momentum is continuously changing due to >the gravity pull of the attractive force between the earth and the moon. Overall angular momentum is conserved. The earth also "orbits" the center of mass of the earth-moon system (as does the moon) which is something like 1000 miles below the earth's surface. The sum is a constant and is conserved. Without anywhere for the angular momentum to "go", the total angular momentum of the earth-moon pair remains the same forever, so the moon will orbit forever. >So the moon cannot be orbiting the earth forever. Newton PROVED it will. >> > If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able >to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. >> Irrelevant since there is nothing to dissipate it so it's always there >> and won't go away. See Newton's Laws. >Not irrelevant....the tangential momentum is not conserved. Angular momentum is ALWAYS conserved. >> > 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? >> Warped spacetime, apparently. Regardless, as long as we know HOW gravity >> behaves, knowing its cause doesn't really matter. It's like if you know >> nothing about electricity, but you do know flipping the switch causes >> the light to come on. >The cause of gravity does matter. Not to this problem. >> Anyway. my point stands. Newton proved stable orbits exist with only one >> attractive force. If you insist on composite forces, you'll have to find >> a flaw with Newton's proof and prove it wrong and you are correct. >> That's a pretty tall order, people have been analyzing Newton's proof >> for hundreds of years. Good luck! >Newton did not Prove anything about stable orbits because if gravity if a >single attractive force then the moon is not able to maintain a stable >orbit. You are writing the exact opposite what Newton wrote in his proof! He PROVED that if gravity is a single attractive force then the moon will maintain a stable orbit forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-06 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <phok6e$1a4n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #463571 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of >>>>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob >>>>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar >>>>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin >>>>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some >>>>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes >>>>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity >>>>>>> well at the center of the bowl. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the >>>>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can >>>>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the >>>>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will >>>>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" >>>>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive >>>>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last >>>>>> forever without external influence. >>>>> >>>>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling >>>>> the pendulum toward the center. >>>> >>>> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why >>>> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the >>>> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be >>>> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). >>>> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a >>>> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? >>> >>> You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can >>> calculate the external influence. >> >> No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force >> and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without >> external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. >> Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. >> Read what was written. > > Answer these questions: > 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its > tangential momentum to start with? Answered in your freshman book, Halliday & Resnick. > 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does > the moon maintains its tangential momentum? Answered in your freshman book. > If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to > maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. Wrong. > 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? Answered in your freshman book. > >> >> Also gravity by itself would be OK since it is a conservative force. >> You'd get a weird orbit from both the magnet and gravity if there was no >> friction. But friction is the killer. >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved >>>>>> Newton's proof. >>>>> >>>>> Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity >>>>> in Newton’s theory is a composite force? >>>> >>>> Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single >>>> force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You >>>> need to disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't. >>> >>> >>> Newton didn’t PROVED anything. >> >> Yes he did. He PROVED that a single attractive central force such as >> gravity would lead to stable orbits. >> >>> He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force >> >> Assertion is not proof of anything, you would have to PROVE that >> assertion to disprove Newton. His force F=GMm/r^2 is a single attractive >> force (only one term), and is not composite. >> >>> so he assumed >> that gravity is a single attractive force. >> >> No assumption, there is only one term there. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-06 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2343151a-a33a-43e3-83fe-e82620ac671d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463634 |
On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:41:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of > >>>>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob > >>>>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar > >>>>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin > >>>>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some > >>>>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes > >>>>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity > >>>>>>> well at the center of the bowl. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the > >>>>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can > >>>>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the > >>>>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will > >>>>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" > >>>>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive > >>>>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last > >>>>>> forever without external influence. > >>>>> > >>>>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling > >>>>> the pendulum toward the center. > >>>> > >>>> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why > >>>> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the > >>>> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be > >>>> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). > >>>> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a > >>>> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? > >>> > >>> You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can > >>> calculate the external influence. > >> > >> No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force > >> and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without > >> external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. > >> Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. > >> Read what was written. > > > > Answer these questions: > > 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its > > tangential momentum to start with? > > Answered in your freshman book, Halliday & Resnick. Moron woodworker. > > > 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does > > the moon maintains its tangential momentum? > > Answered in your freshman book. > > > If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to > > maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. > > Wrong. > > > 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? > > Answered in your freshman book. > > > > >> > >> Also gravity by itself would be OK since it is a conservative force. > >> You'd get a weird orbit from both the magnet and gravity if there was no > >> friction. But friction is the killer. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved > >>>>>> Newton's proof. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity > >>>>> in Newton’s theory is a composite force? > >>>> > >>>> Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single > >>>> force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You > >>>> need to disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't. > >>> > >>> > >>> Newton didn’t PROVED anything. > >> > >> Yes he did. He PROVED that a single attractive central force such as > >> gravity would lead to stable orbits. > >> > >>> He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force > >> > >> Assertion is not proof of anything, you would have to PROVE that > >> assertion to disprove Newton. His force F=GMm/r^2 is a single attractive > >> force (only one term), and is not composite. > >> > >>> so he assumed > >> that gravity is a single attractive force. > >> > >> No assumption, there is only one term there. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-07 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <php2ps$1ti1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #463641 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:41:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of >>>>>>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob >>>>>>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar >>>>>>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin >>>>>>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some >>>>>>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes >>>>>>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity >>>>>>>>> well at the center of the bowl. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the >>>>>>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can >>>>>>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the >>>>>>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will >>>>>>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit" >>>>>>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive >>>>>>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last >>>>>>>> forever without external influence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling >>>>>>> the pendulum toward the center. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why >>>>>> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the >>>>>> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be >>>>>> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet). >>>>>> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a >>>>>> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already? >>>>> >>>>> You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can >>>>> calculate the external influence. >>>> >>>> No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force >>>> and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without >>>> external influence." not that this setup has no external influence. >>>> Right after a "If there was no friction" clause. >>>> Read what was written. >>> >>> Answer these questions: >>> 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its >>> tangential momentum to start with? >> >> Answered in your freshman book, Halliday & Resnick. > > Moron woodworker. So you’ve never read it.... > >> >>> 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does >>> the moon maintains its tangential momentum? >> >> Answered in your freshman book. >> >>> If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to >>> maintain a stable orbit for billions of years. >> >> Wrong. >> >>> 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity? >> >> Answered in your freshman book. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Also gravity by itself would be OK since it is a conservative force. >>>> You'd get a weird orbit from both the magnet and gravity if there was no >>>> friction. But friction is the killer. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved >>>>>>>> Newton's proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity >>>>>>> in Newton’s theory is a composite force? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single >>>>>> force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You >>>>>> need to disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Newton didn’t PROVED anything. >>>> >>>> Yes he did. He PROVED that a single attractive central force such as >>>> gravity would lead to stable orbits. >>>> >>>>> He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force >>>> >>>> Assertion is not proof of anything, you would have to PROVE that >>>> assertion to disprove Newton. His force F=GMm/r^2 is a single attractive >>>> force (only one term), and is not composite. >>>> >>>>> so he assumed >>>> that gravity is a single attractive force. >>>> >>>> No assumption, there is only one term there. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-07 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <phqu07$g19$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #463641 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:41:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > Answer these questions: >> > 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its >> > tangential momentum to start with? >> Answered in your freshman book, Halliday & Resnick. >Moron woodworker. So how does it feel that a so-called "moron woodworker" knows more physics than you do? Maybe if you actually read your Halliday & Resnick book, you could start to catch up to him some day?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-04 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d73aaf0-f8b3-4e10-9831-6e6c81ec4473@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463416 |
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 11:03:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Ken, the sole effect of the fishing line is to constrain the motions > > of the pendulum bob to the surface of a nearly frictionless shallow bowl. > > > > 1) Imagine replacing the fishing line with a frictionless shallow bowl. > > 2) Remove the magnet. > > > > According to your theory, the tangential force of gravitation should > > allow the pendulum bob to slide along the surface of the frictionless > > bowl FOREVER, the same way that the Moon maintains itself in orbit. > > No Sir, according to my theory: > The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. > > As you can see these proposed experiments on earth are not good example for the earth moon system. The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because of the following factors: > 1. There is an attractive EM force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. This means that when the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction there exists a repulsive effect between them. > > 3. The combination of the above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. You aren't thinking things through properly. Basic vector arithmetic tells us that the RADIAL force acting on the coin in the gravity demonstration at the mall is equal to F_p = W sin alpha, where W is the weight of the coin and alpha is the angle of incline. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/inclined-planes-forces-d_1305.html The TANGENTIAL force that you postulate exists will be ***unchanged***. Therefore your theory predicts that the coin must ACCELERATE as it rolls around the gravity well demonstration. This is absolutely, completely contrary to observation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0f31d5e-1aeb-495a-8644-6ae575b22fe2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463419 |
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:42:41 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 11:03:02 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Ken, the sole effect of the fishing line is to constrain the motions > > > of the pendulum bob to the surface of a nearly frictionless shallow bowl. > > > > > > 1) Imagine replacing the fishing line with a frictionless shallow bowl. > > > 2) Remove the magnet. > > > > > > According to your theory, the tangential force of gravitation should > > > allow the pendulum bob to slide along the surface of the frictionless > > > bowl FOREVER, the same way that the Moon maintains itself in orbit. > > > > No Sir, according to my theory: > > The continuous force of Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. > > This is similar to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity well at the center of the bowl. > > > > As you can see these proposed experiments on earth are not good example for the earth moon system. The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because of the following factors: > > 1. There is an attractive EM force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > > > > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. This means that when the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction there exists a repulsive effect between them. > > > > 3. The combination of the above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. > > You aren't thinking things through properly. > > Basic vector arithmetic tells us that the RADIAL force acting on the coin > in the gravity demonstration at the mall is equal to F_p = W sin alpha, > where W is the weight of the coin and alpha is the angle of incline. > https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/inclined-planes-forces-d_1305.html Right F_p is constant but its strength is not constant due to the continuous pull of gravity. > > The TANGENTIAL force that you postulate exists will be ***unchanged***. > Therefore your theory predicts that the coin must ACCELERATE as it rolls > around the gravity well demonstration. There is no continuous external force maintain the tangential momentum to compensate the constant pull of gravity. Therefore, in time, the pull of gravity will win out. > > This is absolutely, completely contrary to observation. ????????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-05 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d03ea7fe-e7c8-4088-9d50-eac3b4a27389@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463484 |
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 8:54:43 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:42:41 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > You aren't thinking things through properly. > > > > Basic vector arithmetic tells us that the RADIAL force acting on the coin > > in the gravity demonstration at the mall is equal to F_p = W sin alpha, > > where W is the weight of the coin and alpha is the angle of incline. > > https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/inclined-planes-forces-d_1305.html > > Right F_p is constant but its strength is not constant due to the continuous pull of gravity. > > > > > The TANGENTIAL force that you postulate exists will be ***unchanged***. > > Therefore your theory predicts that the coin must ACCELERATE as it rolls > > around the gravity well demonstration. > > There is no continuous external force maintain the tangential momentum to compensate the constant pull of gravity. Therefore, in time, the pull of gravity will win out. > > > > > This is absolutely, completely contrary to observation. > > ???????? The radial force is lessened because of the inclined plane effect. The tangential force remains the same because the plane is not inclined in the tangential direction. Therefore the balance between radial and tangential force is altered. Your theory predicts that because of this change in the balance between radial and tangential forces, the coin will INCREASE IN VELOCITY. Sorry, Ken. That's just the way your theory works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web