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

Groups > sci.physics > #612268 > unrolled thread

The Moon

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 11:51 -0800
    Re: The Moon Yuri Kretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-09 14:25 -0600
      Re: The Moon Yuri Kretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-09 14:32 -0600
        Re: The Moon djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-01-10 07:15 +0000
          Re: The Moon Yuri Kretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-10 09:34 -0600
            Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 08:58 -0800
            Re: The Moon shima.tetsuo@dai.tokyo.teikoku (島鉄雄) - 2017-01-11 10:50 +0000
              Re: The Moon djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-01-11 13:48 +0000
          Re: The Moon Kuri Yretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-10 15:12 -0600
            Re: The Moon moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-11 15:00 +0000
    Re: The Moon Nicholle Fiorillo <holhirlo@hololell.ho> - 2017-01-09 22:45 +0000
      Re: The Moon Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> - 2017-01-10 22:08 +0000
      Re: The Moon "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 15:01 -0800
        Re: The Moon "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-01-12 17:28 -0800
    Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 21:28 -0800
    Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 21:46 -0800
      Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 21:49 -0800
        Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 09:08 -0800
        Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 23:05 -0800
          Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 23:16 -0800
            Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-11 14:21 -0800
              Re: The Moon Kuri Yretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-11 19:36 -0600
          Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-12 22:36 -0800
            SwedenborG? thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 09:36 -0800
              there you go, swedenborgian noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 22:37 -0800
            Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 11:01 -0800
              Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 22:44 -0800
                Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-16 10:12 -0800
    Re: The Moon "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 15:59 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#612583

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > >
> > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > >
> > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > >
> > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> >
> > every single theory is missing
> >
> > something
> 
> and a hundred years go by and
> somebody comes along
> and fixes the theory..
> 
> and something is still missing.
> 
> Einstein died trying to find
> the theory of everything..
> 
> what he didn't realize was that
> 
> not that something was missing...but
> 
> that something
> 
> will
> always
> be
> missing.

A 'theory of everything' will have to include whatever is missing.

But if you don't know what is missing...how do you include it? Since, there will always be something....missing.


The Scientific Method is...missing something, isn't it????

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

#612643

On 1/11/2017 4:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>

>>>>>> to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
>>>>> throw them away anyway by next week.

>> missing.
>
> A 'theory of everything' will have to include whatever is missing.
>
> But if you don't know what is missing...how do you include it? Since, there will always be something....missing.
>
>
> The Scientific Method is...missing something, isn't it????
>


na, the moon is made up of a lot of moon rocks, everyone knows that.  It 
was green cheese in the 1950's

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

#612862

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > >
> > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > >
> > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> >
> > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> 
> every single theory is missing
> 
> something


take for example..

Einstein's theory of relativity


from it comes the big bang theory..

but then the question is asked

'what caused the big bang?'

that part is ...missing.




Or Darwin's theory of evolution..


the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'

that's *missing* from his theory..

He even try to hide the missing part by saying:


 "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."


So, every theory is missing something...

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

#612927 — SwedenborG?

that is jut the olde suppositioning that
gravity is the sole longrange theory, but
it ws completely superceded by Alfven waves in free space (like,
air, like, in the '960s in the plasma lab of Upsalla.u

> from it comes the big bang theory..
> 
> but then the question is asked
> 
> 'what caused the big bang?'
> 
> that part is ...missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> 
> 
> the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> 
> that's *missing* from his theory..
> 
> He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> 
> 
>  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> 
> 
> So, every theory is missing something...

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

#614264 — there you go, swedenborgian

Alfven died, I think last year, but
he was also at u.c.s.d, so, thereyago

> that is juSt YE olde suppositioning that
> gravity is the sole longrange theory, but
> it wAs completely superceded by Alfven waves in free space (like,
> air, like, in the '960s in the plasma lab of Upsalla.u
> 
> > from it comes the big bang theory..

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

#612947

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > >
> > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > >
> > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > >
> > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> >
> > every single theory is missing
> >
> > something
> 
> take for example..
> 
> Einstein's theory of relativity
> 
> from it comes the big bang theory..
> 
> but then the question is asked
> 
> 'what caused the big bang?'
> 
> that part is ...missing.
> 
> Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> 
> the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> 
> that's *missing* from his theory..
> 
> He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> 
>  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> 
> So, every theory is missing something...




Charles Darwin spent many years putting together his theory and book The Origin of the Species, but

he left out the most important part...the origin of the species!


I think he said 'it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of species'.

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

#613045

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > > >
> > > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> > >
> > > every single theory is missing
> > >
> > > something
> >
> > take for example..
> >
> > Einstein's theory of relativity
> >
> > from it comes the big bang theory..
> >
> > but then the question is asked
> >
> > 'what caused the big bang?'
> >
> > that part is ...missing.
> >
> > Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> >
> > the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> >
> > that's *missing* from his theory..
> >
> > He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> >
> >  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> >
> > So, every theory is missing something...
> 
> Charles Darwin spent many years putting together his theory and book The Origin of the Species, but
> 
> he left out the most important part...the origin of the species!
> 
> I think he said 'it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of species'.




Now, Albert Einstein died tryin to find a unified theory...

matbe something was...missing.

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

#613379

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> > > >
> > > > every single theory is missing
> > > >
> > > > something
> > >
> > > take for example..
> > >
> > > Einstein's theory of relativity
> > >
> > > from it comes the big bang theory..
> > >
> > > but then the question is asked
> > >
> > > 'what caused the big bang?'
> > >
> > > that part is ...missing.
> > >
> > > Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> > >
> > > the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> > >
> > > that's *missing* from his theory..
> > >
> > > He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> > >
> > >  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> > >
> > > So, every theory is missing something...
> >
> > Charles Darwin spent many years putting together his theory and book The Origin of the Species, but
> >
> > he left out the most important part...the origin of the species!
> >
> > I think he said 'it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of species'.
> 
> Now, Albert Einstein died tryin to find a unified theory...
> 
> maybe something was...missing.


but it will take about 500 years before anybody finds out what was
missing, then...something else turns up missing.


In other words, these "theories" are turtles all the way down.

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

#612816

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:51:44 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> 
> 
> they should be shot. caused they are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does "new-theory" mean???? A new kook?
> 
> 
> Yous people should not be allowed to come up with..."new-theory", cause they are gettin stupidier by the moment!

Moon was the first object in the sky that he could look at and told him he was not alone.He was in reaLITY LAYING ON HIS BACK LOOKING UP. that tell it all TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web