Posted by Rick Merrill on 01/10/82 11:42

Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:50 -0500, Rick Merrill
> <rickZERODOTmerrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>davesvideo@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>Rick Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That would be "You've" you meant ;-) Yes, I think you are right and I should just "ploink" 'im and leave it, as you will note I have in fact done.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now, that you have finished arguing copyright law with a lawyer,
>>>perhaps you want to take on the laws of physics. As a retired
>>>physicist, I must say. that just like those pesky copyright laws, they
>>>sometimes defy comon sense. Care to argue the case, that the Theory of
>>>Relativity is just plain wrong? Facts are not relevant and will result
>>>in no extra points. : -)
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>
>>You mean I was arguing with an ex-lawyer.
>>
>>
>>There really is no such thing as gravity? Earth sucks!-)
>>
>>
>>Tell me oh mighty physicist, what atomic particle contains the property of "mass"?
>
>
> Uh Gravitons ? (They're not atomic of course, but then no elementary
> particles are "atomic"). If you need a Chemist to weigh in at any time
> to clarify molecular science viewpoints, be sure to give me a shout !
>
> Cheers - Neil

That's the theory, but they've never been proven. Right now the results from Gravity Probe B is being analyzed to see if Einstein's prediciton of frame drag can be verified. If not, well, it could be Michaelson-Morely all over again...

[Back to original message]