The center of gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 22:31 On Apr 29, 7:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 4/29/2010 8:22 PM, BURT wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 4:06 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>> You might consider it to have > >>> started really with Galileio. If this is true it is about 400 years > >>> old. How old do you want it to be? What will it be like in a million > >>> years? > > >> I want it to be as old as it is. You want it to be recorded and > >> reported starting with gravity. You're wrong. > > > Show me where I am wrong. The first theory was about gravity. > > I told you once, I'll tell you again. The beginnings of science > probably came about when humans or perhaps protohumans began to > think about utilizing fire. Science is the study of nature. > > >>> Sceience is too young to claim it knows much. And the first force to > >>> be formulated was gravity. And it is central to order in the universe.. > > >> Nonsense. Your wanting something to be as you state is fails > >> just as your will that you receive two Nobel prizes did.- > > > You can wait on those ask Stephen Hawking. > > The discussion was about you stating for the best part of a year > that you would be awarded 2 Nobel prizes that your. It didn't > happen. You're as right about gravity being the beginnings of > science as you were about those prizes you didn't get. I will get them in the future. I don't know when and I don't have to. What is the problem with the fact that science is at its beginning basically from a larger point of view? Just as civilization is only 10 thousand and our fossil record under 100. Perhaps you think it knows more than it really does. What will it be like in a million years? Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 30 Apr 2010 00:00 On Apr 29, 9:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 7:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/29/2010 8:22 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 4:06 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > >>> You might consider it to have > > >>> started really with Galileio. If this is true it is about 400 years > > >>> old. How old do you want it to be? What will it be like in a million > > >>> years? > > > >> I want it to be as old as it is. You want it to be recorded and > > >> reported starting with gravity. You're wrong. > > > > Show me where I am wrong. The first theory was about gravity. > > > I told you once, I'll tell you again. The beginnings of science > > probably came about when humans or perhaps protohumans began to > > think about utilizing fire. Science is the study of nature. > > > >>> Sceience is too young to claim it knows much. And the first force to > > >>> be formulated was gravity. And it is central to order in the universe. > > > >> Nonsense. Your wanting something to be as you state is fails > > >> just as your will that you receive two Nobel prizes did.- > > > > You can wait on those ask Stephen Hawking. > > > The discussion was about you stating for the best part of a year > > that you would be awarded 2 Nobel prizes that your. It didn't > > happen. You're as right about gravity being the beginnings of > > science as you were about those prizes you didn't get. > > I will get them in the future. I don't know when and I don't have to. > > What is the problem with the fact that science is at its beginning > basically from a larger point of view? Just as civilization is only 10 > thousand and our fossil record under 100. > > Perhaps you think it knows more than it really does. > What will it be like in a million years? Mitch, I hate to admit this, but..... I have deep feelings for you.
From: Don Stockbauer on 30 Apr 2010 00:01 On Apr 29, 9:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 7:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/29/2010 8:22 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 4:06 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > >>> You might consider it to have > > >>> started really with Galileio. If this is true it is about 400 years > > >>> old. How old do you want it to be? What will it be like in a million > > >>> years? > > > >> I want it to be as old as it is. You want it to be recorded and > > >> reported starting with gravity. You're wrong. > > > > Show me where I am wrong. The first theory was about gravity. > > > I told you once, I'll tell you again. The beginnings of science > > probably came about when humans or perhaps protohumans began to > > think about utilizing fire. Science is the study of nature. > > > >>> Sceience is too young to claim it knows much. And the first force to > > >>> be formulated was gravity. And it is central to order in the universe. > > > >> Nonsense. Your wanting something to be as you state is fails > > >> just as your will that you receive two Nobel prizes did.- > > > > You can wait on those ask Stephen Hawking. > > > The discussion was about you stating for the best part of a year > > that you would be awarded 2 Nobel prizes that your. It didn't > > happen. You're as right about gravity being the beginnings of > > science as you were about those prizes you didn't get. > > I will get them in the future. I don't know when and I don't have to. > > What is the problem with the fact that science is at its beginning > basically from a larger point of view? Just as civilization is only 10 > thousand and our fossil record under 100. > > Perhaps you think it knows more than it really does. > What will it be like in a million years? 'Cause little Willy, Willy won't go home But you can't push Willy round Willy won't go, try tellin' everybody but, oh no Little Willy, Willy won't go home
From: purple on 30 Apr 2010 00:11 On 4/29/2010 9:31 PM, BURT wrote: > On Apr 29, 7:23 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 4/29/2010 8:22 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> On Apr 25, 4:06 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>>> You might consider it to have >>>>> started really with Galileio. If this is true it is about 400 years >>>>> old. How old do you want it to be? What will it be like in a million >>>>> years? >> >>>> I want it to be as old as it is. You want it to be recorded and >>>> reported starting with gravity. You're wrong. >> >>> Show me where I am wrong. The first theory was about gravity. >> >> I told you once, I'll tell you again. The beginnings of science >> probably came about when humans or perhaps protohumans began to >> think about utilizing fire. Science is the study of nature. >> >>>>> Sceience is too young to claim it knows much. And the first force to >>>>> be formulated was gravity. And it is central to order in the universe. >> >>>> Nonsense. Your wanting something to be as you state is fails >>>> just as your will that you receive two Nobel prizes did.- >> >>> You can wait on those ask Stephen Hawking. >> >> The discussion was about you stating for the best part of a year >> that you would be awarded 2 Nobel prizes that your. It didn't >> happen. You're as right about gravity being the beginnings of >> science as you were about those prizes you didn't get. > > I will get them in the future. I don't know when and I don't have to. > > What is the problem with the fact that science is at its beginning > basically from a larger point of view? Just as civilization is only 10 > thousand and our fossil record under 100. Science is the study of nature. It began soon after humans, or protohumans, became self-aware. What the specific wealth of knowledge within science happens to be is not an issue for dispute. > Perhaps you think it knows more than it really does. > What will it be like in a million years? > > Mitch Raemsch It doesn't matter what it will be in a million years. Nobody reading this will be there to marvel.
From: BURT on 30 Apr 2010 14:20
On Apr 29, 9:11 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 4/29/2010 9:31 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 7:23 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 4/29/2010 8:22 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On Apr 25, 4:06 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>> You might consider it to have > >>>>> started really with Galileio. If this is true it is about 400 years > >>>>> old. How old do you want it to be? What will it be like in a million > >>>>> years? > > >>>> I want it to be as old as it is. You want it to be recorded and > >>>> reported starting with gravity. You're wrong. > > >>> Show me where I am wrong. The first theory was about gravity. > > >> I told you once, I'll tell you again. The beginnings of science > >> probably came about when humans or perhaps protohumans began to > >> think about utilizing fire. Science is the study of nature. > > >>>>> Sceience is too young to claim it knows much. And the first force to > >>>>> be formulated was gravity. And it is central to order in the universe. > > >>>> Nonsense. Your wanting something to be as you state is fails > >>>> just as your will that you receive two Nobel prizes did.- > > >>> You can wait on those ask Stephen Hawking. > > >> The discussion was about you stating for the best part of a year > >> that you would be awarded 2 Nobel prizes that your. It didn't > >> happen. You're as right about gravity being the beginnings of > >> science as you were about those prizes you didn't get. > > > I will get them in the future. I don't know when and I don't have to. > > > What is the problem with the fact that science is at its beginning > > basically from a larger point of view? Just as civilization is only 10 > > thousand and our fossil record under 100. > > Science is the study of nature. It began soon after humans, or > protohumans, became self-aware. What the specific wealth of > knowledge within science happens to be is not an issue for > dispute. > > > Perhaps you think it knows more than it really does. > > What will it be like in a million years? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > It doesn't matter what it will be in a million years. Nobody > reading this will be there to marvel.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But the point is science has really just begun. Mitch Raemsch |