The center of gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 30 Apr 2010 14:25 On Apr 29, 9:00 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I kind of figured. You have been following me around you know. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 30 Apr 2010 16:17 On Apr 30, 1:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 9:00 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I kind of figured. You have been following me around you know. > Somebody has to point out to others what word salad you keep proffering. And besides - "deep feelings" could vey well be hatred.
From: BURT on 30 Apr 2010 17:10
On Apr 30, 1:17 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 1:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 9:00 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I kind of figured. You have been following me around you know. > > Somebody has to point out to others what word salad you keep > proffering. > > And besides - "deep feelings" could vey well be hatred.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You mean they can't figure that out on there own? You really ought to give them more credit. Mitch Raemsch |