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

Groups > sci.physics > #553600 > unrolled thread

GRAVITY...

Started byThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
First post2016-02-16 11:44 -0800
Last post2016-02-20 04:27 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 36 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 11:44 -0800
    Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 14:44 -0600
      Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
        Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:26 -0600
          Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 14:27 -0800
            Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
              Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 15:54 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:05 -0600
                  Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 21:28 -0800
              Re: GRAVITY... Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-02-16 16:10 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:25 -0600
                Re: GRAVITY... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-16 16:39 -0800
                Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:57 -0600
                  Re: GRAVITY... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-16 21:11 -0800
    Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 22:37 -0800
      Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 09:42 -0800
        Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:48 -0600
          Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
            /alfven, J. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:15 -0800
            Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:02 -0600
              gra-something noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 20:06 -0800
            Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 23:54 -0800
              Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 03:40 -0500
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0500
                Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 11:26 -0800
                  Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
                    Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 14:09 -0800
                      Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:12 -0600
                        Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 16:29 -0800
                      Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 12:06 -0800
            Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 23:24 -0800
              Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:24 -0600
          Re: GRAVITY... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 21:48 -0800
        Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:55 -0600
          Re: GRAVITY... Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:55 +0000
          Re: GRAVITY... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:27 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#553600 — GRAVITY...

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-16 11:44 -0800
SubjectGRAVITY...
Message-ID<56C37C07.5882@ix.netcom.com>
i saw 
a person
fall down..
and i
wondered to
myself...
how many planets
were involved?

it couldn't have just
been the moon...

i imagine other
planets having
a piece of the
action.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#553611

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 14:44 -0600
Message-ID<msKdnTe6WcexF17LnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553600
On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> i saw
> a person
> fall down..
> and i
> wondered to
> myself...
> how many planets
> were involved?

   Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553613

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Message-ID<56C38B72.A1E@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553611
Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > i saw
> > a person
> > fall down..
> > and i
> > wondered to
> > myself...
> > how many planets
> > were involved?
> 
>    Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
> 


Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553625

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 15:26 -0600
Message-ID<msKdnTC6Wce8CV7LnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553613
On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> i saw
>>> a person
>>> fall down..
>>> and i
>>> wondered to
>>> myself...
>>> how many planets
>>> were involved?
>>
>>     Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
>>
>
>
> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
>

   No...
   According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
   mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
   in what we call gravitation.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553650

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-16 14:27 -0800
Message-ID<56C3A23C.EEE@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553625
Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> i saw
> >>> a person
> >>> fall down..
> >>> and i
> >>> wondered to
> >>> myself...
> >>> how many planets
> >>> were involved?
> >>
> >>     Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
> >
> 
>    No...
>    According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
>    mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
>    in what we call gravitation.


There is no such word as "momentum-energy".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553669

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Message-ID<J9udnfI_jvjCLF7LnZ2dnUU7-bsAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#553650
On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> i saw
>>>>> a person
>>>>> fall down..
>>>>> and i
>>>>> wondered to
>>>>> myself...
>>>>> how many planets
>>>>> were involved?
>>>>
>>>>      Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
>>>
>>
>>     No...
>>     According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
>>     mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
>>     in what we call gravitation.
>
>
> There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
>

   It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much
   easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation


   E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553680

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-16 15:54 -0800
Message-ID<56C3B6BA.3905@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553669
Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> i saw
> >>>>> a person
> >>>>> fall down..
> >>>>> and i
> >>>>> wondered to
> >>>>> myself...
> >>>>> how many planets
> >>>>> were involved?
> >>>>
> >>>>      Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
> >>>
> >>
> >>     No...
> >>     According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
> >>     mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
> >>     in what we call gravitation.
> >
> >
> > There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
> >
> 
>    It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much
>    easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
> 
>    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation 

Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy"

has nothing to do with Gravity!

Do you see any mention of the word "Gravity" on the page from the link
you provided????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553687

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 18:05 -0600
Message-ID<J9udne8_jvinJF7LnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553680
On 2/16/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> i saw
>>>>>>> a person
>>>>>>> fall down..
>>>>>>> and i
>>>>>>> wondered to
>>>>>>> myself...
>>>>>>> how many planets
>>>>>>> were involved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      No...
>>>>      According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
>>>>      mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
>>>>      in what we call gravitation.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
>>>
>>
>>     It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much
>>     easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
>>
>>     E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
>>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
>
> Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy"
>
> has nothing to do with Gravity!
>


   Even some school kids know the mass and energy warp spacetime and that
   warped spacetime tells mass how to move (gravity)

   "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space
   and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime."
   That, in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553768

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-16 21:28 -0800
Message-ID<56C40510.40D7@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553687
Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 2/16/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>> i saw
> >>>>>>> a person
> >>>>>>> fall down..
> >>>>>>> and i
> >>>>>>> wondered to
> >>>>>>> myself...
> >>>>>>> how many planets
> >>>>>>> were involved?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>       Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>      No...
> >>>>      According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
> >>>>      mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
> >>>>      in what we call gravitation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
> >>>
> >>
> >>     It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much
> >>     easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
> >>
> >>     E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> >>
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
> >
> > Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy"
> >
> > has nothing to do with Gravity!
> >
> 
>    Even some school kids know the mass and energy warp spacetime and that
>    warped spacetime tells mass how to move (gravity)
> 
>    "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space
>    and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime."
>    That, in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory.
> 


"manifestation"???? sounds too religious to me...


manifestation is not physics, it's metaphysical...physcology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553691

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-02-16 16:10 -0800
Message-ID<3c604c9e-4900-479c-b642-778bd303f4ca@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#553669
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:31:46 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> i saw
> >>>>> a person
> >>>>> fall down..
> >>>>> and i
> >>>>> wondered to
> >>>>> myself...
> >>>>> how many planets
> >>>>> were involved?
> >>>>
> >>>>      Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
> >>>
> >>
> >>     No...
> >>     According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
> >>     mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
> >>     in what we call gravitation.
> >
> >
> > There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
> >
> 
>    It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much
>    easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation
> 
> 
>    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> 

Wow!  This looks like it has the same units as Bert's G = Emc^2 !

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553696

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 18:25 -0600
Message-ID<J9udneo_jvhmIF7LnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553691
On 2/16/16 6:10 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:31:46 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> i saw
>>>>>>> a person
>>>>>>> fall down..
>>>>>>> and i
>>>>>>> wondered to
>>>>>>> myself...
>>>>>>> how many planets
>>>>>>> were involved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy???
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      No...
>>>>      According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass,
>>>>      mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting
>>>>      in what we call gravitation.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such word as "momentum-energy".
>>>
>>
>>     It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much
>>     easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation
>>
>>
>>     E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
>>
>
> Wow!  This looks like it has the same units as Bert's G = Emc^2 !
>
> Double-A
>

   Nope... No G

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553704

From"hanson" <hanson@quick.net>
Date2016-02-16 16:39 -0800
Message-ID<na0fbl$8sf$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#553691
"Double-A" <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
 
Sam Wormley wrote:
> The Starmaker aka kike Sternmacher wrote: ph...ttt!
>
Sam Wormley wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation
>>    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2    ........ [1]
> 
Double-Alkie wrote:
> Wow!  This looks like it has the same units as Bert's G = Emc^2 !
> 
hanson wrote:
Besides [1] being an 80 years old pedestrian banality
that will never get a job for anyone these days, [1] is as
bad as Full-Swine Glazier's stolen and wrong G=EMC^2.
>
So, when you get sober write down the MTL unit equations
and see how you have denigrated the Physics establishment.
>
But you being a Sanders-Communist, that may be ok by you
Thanks for the laughs though...... ahahahahahanson  
> 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553751

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-16 22:57 -0600
Message-ID<OqGdnTJ7weJYYF7LnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553691
On 2/16/16 6:10 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:31:46 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>     E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
>>

>
> Wow!  This looks like it has the same units as Bert's G = Emc^2 !
>
> Double-A
>
>
>

   See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553760

From"hanson" <hanson@quick.net>
Date2016-02-16 21:11 -0800
Message-ID<na0v88$fqv$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#553751
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_relation
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw
>    E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2    ........ [1]
> 
Double-Alkie"Double-A" <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> Wow!  This looks like it has the same units as Bert's G = Emc^2 !
> 
hanson wrote:
Besides [1] being an 80 years old pedestrian banality
that will never get a job for anyone these days, [1] is as
bad as Full-Swine Glazier's stolen and wrong G=EMC^2.
>
So, when you get sober write down the MTL unit equations
and see how you have denigrated the Physics establishment.
>
But you being a Sanders-Communist, that may be ok by you
Thanks for the laughs though...... ahahahahahanson  
> 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553785

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-16 22:37 -0800
Message-ID<56C4153A.3A1@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553600
The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> i saw
> a person
> fall down..
> and i
> wondered to
> myself...
> how many planets
> were involved?
> 
> it couldn't have just
> been the moon...
> 
> i imagine other
> planets having
> a piece of the
> action.


It seems that most of yous
are too close to the trees to see the forest...

yous do understand the Gravity...is 'just a theory'?


haves yous forgotten??

it's...just a theory....just a belief...speculation.


No one can say Gravity is true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553938

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-17 09:42 -0800
Message-ID<56C4B116.7835@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553785
The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > i saw
> > a person
> > fall down..
> > and i
> > wondered to
> > myself...
> > how many planets
> > were involved?
> >
> > it couldn't have just
> > been the moon...
> >
> > i imagine other
> > planets having
> > a piece of the
> > action.
> 
> It seems that most of yous
> are too close to the trees to see the forest...
> 
> yous do understand the Gravity...is 'just a theory'?
> 
> haves yous forgotten??
> 
> it's...just a theory....just a belief...speculation.
> 
> No one can say Gravity is true.

I mean, if you haven't even prove that Gravity exist and is true...how can you find gravity waves?


That's like saying there is no God but you know what kind of car he drives.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553940

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 11:48 -0600
Message-ID<lOadnaBYLL4fL1nLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#553938
On 2/17/16 11:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I mean, if you haven't even prove that Gravity exist


   You saw a guy fall, therefore, gravity exists.

   You see satellites orbiting other bodies, therefore, gravity exists.

   You once got hit bu a falling apple, acorn or walnut,
   therefore, gravity exists.

   You have noted that big balls of gas and plasma exist using hydrogen
   into helium, therefore, gravity exists.

   The existence og gravitation or warped spacetime is not in question.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#554076

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
Message-ID<56C4FE70.1ADC@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#553940
Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 2/17/16 11:42 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > I mean, if you haven't even prove that Gravity exist
> 
>    You saw a guy fall, therefore, gravity exists.
> 
>    You see satellites orbiting other bodies, therefore, gravity exists.
> 
>    You once got hit bu a falling apple, acorn or walnut,
>    therefore, gravity exists.
> 
>    You have noted that big balls of gas and plasma exist using hydrogen
>    into helium, therefore, gravity exists.
> 
>    The existence og gravitation or warped spacetime is not in question.


You have no evidence that gravity exist.


I'll ask you a question...is Gravity a Theory?


: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory



I'll ask you this question...is Gravity a Theory? Yes or No??


or


Is there a theory called... The Theory of Gravity??? Si or No, senoir?



Ja or nien?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#554082 — /alfven, J.

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 16:15 -0800
Subject/alfven, J.
Message-ID<f408c003-60bf-401f-83ce-1aae6fec751e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#554076
this is now given i terms of Akfven waveS e.g

> Is there a theory called... The Theory of Gravity??? Si or No, senoir?
> 
> 
> 
> Ja or nien?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#554095

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-17 19:02 -0600
Message-ID<q_2dne3tqd2xhVjLnZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#554076
On 2/17/16 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I'll ask you this question...is Gravity a Theory? Yes or No??
> or
> Is there a theory called... The Theory of Gravity??? Si or No, senoir?
>

   Gravitation is a fundamental force described mathematically by Sir
   Isaac Newton's Law of Gravitation.

   Einstein's theory of gravitation (general relativity) is even more
   accurate than Newton's and supported by countless experiments and
   observations, including GNSS 24/7.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web