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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #433456

Re: GRAVITY...

Message-ID <56C4FE70.1ADC@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
From The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups rec.arts.sf.written, alt.astronomy, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: GRAVITY...
References <56C37C07.5882@ix.netcom.com> <56C4153A.3A1@ix.netcom.com> <56C4B116.7835@ix.netcom.com> <lOadnaBYLL4fL1nLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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?

Back to rec.arts.sf.written | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 11:44 -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 11:55 -0600
      Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -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. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 16:29 -0800
        Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 23:24 -0800

csiph-web