Author: sdrsdr Date: Jan 26, 2008 21:16
On Jan 23, 3:34 pm, Uncle Al
hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>>> ... you will NOT find a definite explanation
>>>> of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in
>>>> the annals of conventional science because
>> Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)
>> Was that so hard? Idiot.
Dear Idiot, I wrote... "the annals of conventional
science" not those of "science fiction." [By the way,
had you read my article, you'd seen that I discuss
many of the fallacies in early 20th Century physics.]
You know, if instead of merely throwing rocks you'd
actually address whatever it is you object to (other
than people's pretty donkeys), you wouldn't come off
as so reprehensibly puerile. Never the less, here's a
hint which may cover your generalized "objection" =
|