Probality of God

[Magluvin]

Women of the past didn't have birth control, yet this didn't stop women from prostituting themselves.  They have uncovered many pits throughout the world where women working out of brothels just threw their newborn babies into these pits left to die.  Hundreds and thousands of babies are being found in these pits.  What a shame, and this isn't much different than what women are doing today by getting an abortion.  Yes, it's all about lifestyle and taking the path of least resistance.

Gravock

Hey G

I know these things exist. But now it will be a standard.

Mags

[Gwandau]

Yes, they discarded their former assumption of one axial revolution per orbital revolution, so what makes you think their latter assumption of the 3:2 is correct and shouldn't be discarded like their former assumption?  I modified my original post to better reflect their erroneous assumptions, both the former and the latter.  We know their former assumption was erroneous, just like I stated.  Thanks for proving this for me!

Gravock

Gravock,

Are you retracting your claim or are you showing us proof? Don't hink you can get away with such a claim without presenting proof. Who do you take us for?

SO DON'T TRY TO SNEAK AWAY LIKE A SNAKE HERE.
GIVES US PROOF OF MERCURY HAVING AN AXIAL ROTATION AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EQUATORIAL PLANE OF THE SUN!
SINCE YOU HAVE NOT MADE ONE SINGLE ATTEMPT TO PRESENT PROOF, YOUR WILD ASSUMPTION IS AUTOMATICALLY  DISCARDED BY EVERYONE BUT YOURSELF.

You see, science has it right regarding Mercury. Their observations are no assumptions, they are validated beyond doubt, same level of reliability that tells us the earth is round.
Some areas of astronomical data are irrefutably clear and has been repeatedly validated by independent observations. The documented rotational behaviour of Mercury is such data.

You are embarrasingly wrong this time, and you do not have the grace to admit it, poor guy.

Gwandau

[gravityblock]

and thanks for demonstrating your insanity...Q.E.D.

Ah, but the next post did have a different result, as I expected.   

Gravock

[hoptoad]

snip...
I can't cite any references, because earthly science believes in a real force of gravity.  Their failure in being able to unite gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature should be a real concern which causes them to rethink their idea of gravity.  However, they can't think past mass attracting mass, so I doubt this will happen.
snip...

Well that depends on which "they" doesn't it.?  If you take the relativistic view of gravity founded in the early 20th century, (and which is currently still the most widely accepted view by western astronomers and cosmologists) , then gravity is described as an effect, not a force.

It would seem you haven't yet caught up with the 20th century, let alone the 21st century.

[gravityblock]

Gravock,

Are you retracting your claim or are you showing us proof? Don't hink you can get away with such a claim without presenting proof. Who do you take us for?

SO DON'T TRY TO SNEAK AWAY LIKE A SNAKE HERE.
GIVES US PROOF OF MERCURY HAVING AN AXIAL ROTATION AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EQUATORIAL PLANE OF THE SUN!
SINCE YOU HAVE NOT MADE ONE SINGLE ATTEMPT TO PRESENT PROOF, YOUR WILD ASSUMPTION IS AUTOMATICALLY  DISCARDED BY EVERYONE BUT YOURSELF.

You see, science has it right regarding Mercury. Their observations are no assumptions, they are validated beyond doubt, same level of reliability that tells us the earth is round.
Some areas of astronomical data are irrefutably clear and has been repeatedly validated by independent observations. The documented rotational behaviour of Mercury is such data.

You are embarrasingly wrong this time, and you do not have the grace to admit it, poor guy.

Gwandau

No, I'm not retracting my claim.  They were wrong before, and they are wrong again.  According to them, Mercury is the only body in the solar system known to have an orbital/rotational resonance with a ratio other than 1:1.  This is my proof that Mercury isn't behaving like the other planets with a resonance, thus it's a satellite of the sun.  If it's not walking like a duck, and not quaking like a duck, then it's not a duck (planet).

Gravock