Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597422 > unrolled thread

Is gravity a single attractive force?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is gravity a single attractive force? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 02:01 -0800
    Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-13 11:24 +0100
    Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 12:17 -0800
    Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-13 12:24 -0800
    Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:19 -0800
      Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:31 -0800
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 20:35 -0800
      Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-14 10:51 +0100
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 04:12 -0800
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-14 15:41 +0100
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 10:03 -0800
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-14 20:47 +0000
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-20 23:37 +0100
            Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Vincenzo Longo <olcv@ovgingln.og> - 2022-12-20 22:50 +0000
            Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 11:13 -0800
              Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Michelle Africano <nccr@amenica.he> - 2022-12-21 19:36 +0000
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 11:53 -0800
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Brent Làconi <oll@ntonoobe.bc> - 2022-12-15 20:36 +0000
    Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-13 23:31 -0500
      Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Fabio Brambilla <oaab@llbaboaa.am> - 2022-12-14 18:08 +0000
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-14 13:37 -0600
      Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 12:07 -0800
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Brent Làconi <oll@ntonoobe.bc> - 2022-12-15 20:31 +0000
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-16 02:09 -0500
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 04:13 -0800
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-16 18:51 +0000
            Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 10:47 -0800
              Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 19:24 +0000
                Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-17 11:33 -0800
                  Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 19:55 +0000
                    Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-17 12:15 -0800
                      Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 20:29 +0000
                        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-17 12:34 -0800
                          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 21:40 +0000
                            Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-17 14:29 -0800
                              Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 23:27 +0000
                              Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-18 00:16 +0000
                              Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 11:10 -0800
                              Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-20 12:11 -0800
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 05:09 -0800
            Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-23 14:26 +0100
        Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-16 09:15 +0100
          Re: Is gravity a single attractive force? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-16 10:24 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#597422 — Is gravity a single attractive force?

The answer is: NO
Why?  Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will crash into the earth in a short time.
Gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands.

2. The structure  of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force.

3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#597424

On 2022-12-13 10:01:07 +0000, Ken "Idiot MM is a valid TOE" Seto (liar 
about contributions to Science and Nature) said:

> The answer is: NO
> Why?  Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is 
> not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. 
> It will crash into the earth in a short time.

You've said this numerous times, and it remains claptrap. It has been 
explained to you sufficiently often for you to _know_ that it's 
claptrap.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597451

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> The answer is: NO 
> Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will crash into the earth in a short time. 

They measure it getting further away. Eventually Earth and Moon will lose their relationship because of it.

> Gravity is a composite force as follows: 
> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands. 

There is more than one gravity. We share the Earth's and the Sun's.

> 
> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force. 
> 
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years.

Gravity can push a pendulum and roll a frame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597452

Ken Seto wrote:
> 
> The answer is: NO
> Why?  Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will crash into the earth in a short time.
> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands.
> 
> 2. The structure  of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force.
> 
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years.

How many zeros in bi;;ions?

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597462

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> The answer is: NO 
> Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will crash into the earth in a short time. 
> Gravity is a composite force as follows: 
> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands. 
> 
> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force. 
> 
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years.

A childish fantasy.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597465

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 1:19:04 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The answer is: NO 
> > Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will crash into the earth in a short time. 
> > Gravity is a composite force as follows: 
> > 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands. 
> > 
> > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force. 
> > 
> > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years.
> A childish fantasy. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan

Gravity is a force that can accelerate... and decelerate a frame.. 
Orbits are not inertial frames.. different gravity
strength accelerates them in an ellipse that ends in outer frame deceleration
Einstein's gravity field causes free falling weightless...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597478

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 1:19:04 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > The answer is: NO 
> > > Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will crash into the earth in a short time. 
> > > Gravity is a composite force as follows: 
> > > 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands. 
> > > 
> > > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force. 
> > > 
> > > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years. 
> > A childish fantasy. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> Gravity is a force that can accelerate... and decelerate a frame.. 
> Orbits are not inertial frames.. different gravity 
> strength accelerates them in an ellipse that ends in outer frame deceleration 
> Einstein's gravity field causes free falling weightless... 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Gravity is a fall gravity, with massy bodies being inertial.

(Instead of perpetual motion machines.)

Einstein's "gravity field" is basically terrestrial.

That's what's down.

Gravity as a fall gravity neatly unifies with the strong nuclear force, 
has the real graviton as atom its own force carrier and virtual partner, 
otherwise seems required for unified field theory.

This has the nuclear and charge: complementary forces and carriers.

I.e. it's energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597487

On 2022-12-13 21:19:02 +0000, JanPB said:

> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The answer is: NO
>> Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is 
>> not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. 
>> It will crash into the earth in a short time.
>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because 
>> they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the 
>> universe expands.
>> 
>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon 
>> are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This 
>> causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This 
>> repulsive effect is called the CRE force.
>> 
>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of 
>> the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the 
>> CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the 
>> earth for bi;;ions of years.
> 
> A childish fantasy.

There is a simple experiment that one can do that will indicate that 
there is no repulsive force (though I don't suppose Ken "Idiot MM is a 
valid TOE" Seto will be able to draw the obvious conclusion). Attach a 
string of suitable length -- 5 m -- to an object like a coffee mug, and 
swing it around your body. It will adopt a circular orbit and stay in 
it as long as you continue to swing it. But where is the repulsive 
force that stops it rushing in to hit you? There is none, and the 
string is incapable of pushing.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597491

On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 10:52:02 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-13 21:19:02 +0000, JanPB said: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >> The answer is: NO 
> >> Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is 
> >> not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. 
> >> It will crash into the earth in a short time. 
> >> Gravity is a composite force as follows: 
> >> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because 
> >> they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the 
> >> universe expands. 
> >> 
> >> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon 
> >> are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This 
> >> causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This 
> >> repulsive effect is called the CRE force. 
> >> 
> >> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of 
> >> the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the 
> >> CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the 
> >> earth for bi;;ions of years. 
> > 
> > A childish fantasy.
> There is a simple experiment that one can do that will indicate that 


And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in
forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597497

On 2022-12-14 09:51:58 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

[ … ]

> 
> There is a simple experiment that one can do that will indicate that 
> there is no repulsive force (though I don't suppose Ken "Idiot MM is a 
> valid TOE" Seto will be able to draw the obvious conclusion). Attach a 
> string of suitable length -- 5 m -- to an object like a coffee mug, and 
> swing it around your body. It will adopt a circular orbit and stay in 
> it as long as you continue to swing it. But where is the repulsive 
> force that stops it rushing in to hit you? There is none, and the 
> string is incapable of pushing.

Many years ago (1962, I think) I did this experiment with a glass 
chromatography tube, when I had a summer job in a laboratory belonging 
to a brewery. I don't think either I or the person who was put in 
charge of me (a German Jew who had spent the entire war living 
underground in Berlin; I wouldn't have guessed that was possible) with 
had much experience with column chromatography. Anyway, we thought the 
gel needed to be packed more tightly, and so we attached a string to 
the tube and swung it around. It could have been a lethal weapon in 
anyone had been around, but nobody was. If I had been Ken "Idiot MM is 
a valid TOE" Seto I might have been frightened that it would come 
towards me, but that didn't happen.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597516

On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 15:41:39 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-14 09:51:58 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said: 
> 
> [ … ]
> > 
> > There is a simple experiment that one can do that will indicate that 
> > there is no repulsive force (though I don't suppose Ken "Idiot MM is a 
> > valid TOE" Seto will be able to draw the obvious conclusion). Attach a 
> > string of suitable length -- 5 m -- to an object like a coffee mug, and 
> > swing it around your body. It will adopt a circular orbit and stay in 
> > it as long as you continue to swing it. But where is the repulsive 
> > force that stops it rushing in to hit you? There is none, and the 
> > string is incapable of pushing.
> Many years ago (1962, I think) I did this experiment with a glass 

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in
forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597529

Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2022-12-13 21:19:02 +0000, JanPB said:
> 
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> The answer is: NO
>>> Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is
>>> not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years.
>>> It will crash into the earth in a short time.
>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because
>>> they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the
>>> universe expands.
>>>
>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon
>>> are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This
>>> causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This
>>> repulsive effect is called the CRE force.
>>>
>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of
>>> the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of
>>> the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion
>>> around the earth for bi;;ions of years.
>>
>> A childish fantasy.
> 
> There is a simple experiment that one can do that will indicate that
> there is no repulsive force (though I don't suppose Ken "Idiot MM is a
> valid TOE" Seto will be able to draw the obvious conclusion). Attach a
> string of suitable length -- 5 m -- to an object like a coffee mug, and
> swing it around your body. It will adopt a circular orbit and stay in it
> as long as you continue to swing it. But where is the repulsive force
> that stops it rushing in to hit you? There is none, and the string is
> incapable of pushing.
> 
> 

From:
> ... if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able
to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will
crash into the earth in a short time.

, I'm assuming KenSeto is trying to solve the problem of aether drag,
i.e., if we assume that an aether exists, then it must slow down the
planets and moons, eventually making them crash into the sun.

Note that an aether is not ruled out by Einstein. See for example:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
> [24] Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory
of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

KenSeto's attempted solution makes little sense to me. The best I can
make of it is that the Moon is indeed crashing towards the Earth due to
aether drag, but an expanding universe is compensating for it.

Are there aether models that can explain the persistence of planetary
orbits in a convincing fashion?

The best I can come up with is that the whole aether in the *common*
orbital (ecliptic?) plane of the planets is in motion as in a vortex,
and this large "mass" of aether loses rotational momentum and energy
much slower than a single planet or moon would if it were moving in a
stationary aether. And the moons are in sub-vortices themselves,
analogous to the long persisting 'eye of Jupiter' maelstrom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597947

Aether Regaind wrote:

> From:
>> ... if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able
> to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will
> crash into the earth in a short time.

This appears to be common misconception (I just read it on Quora the other 
day).  It is easily disproved (actually an exercise for first-year Physics 
students).

Angular momentum of a point with mass m (in units where ‖r⃗‖ = 1):

      L⃗ ≔ m (r⃗ × v⃗) = r⃗ × (m v⃗) = r⃗ × p⃗

⇒ dL⃗/dt = dr⃗/dt × p⃗ + r⃗ × dp⃗/dt
        = v⃗     × p⃗ + r × F⃗
        = r⃗ × F⃗.

[This quantity is also called the *torque* τ⃗.)

If

      F⃗ = −f(1/r) r⃗

as it is in the case of the gravitational force

      F⃗ = −G M m/r² r⃗/r = −G M m/r³ r⃗,

then

⇒ dL⃗/dt = r⃗ × F⃗ = r⃗ × [−f(1/r) r⃗] = −f(1/r) [r⃗ × r⃗] = 0⃗.

[See also: <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>, 20:04]

IOW, orbital angular momentum would be conserved not despite, but *because* 
gravity would be fully described by a single attractive force.  (The only 
other possibility would be no force at all.)

[It actually is not: According to general relativity, there is no 
gravitational force (gravitational effects are a consequence of the 
curvature of spacetime instead), and such a system will gradually lose 
energy to emitted gravitational waves, and so the semi-major axis of the 
orbit of a secondary will decrease.  However, the timescales in the case of 
a planet and a moon or a star and a planet(ary system) are too large to be 
considerable (by contrast to e.g. close binary black holes or binary neutron 
stars, see GW150914 and GW170817, respectively).

Veritasium (Derek Muller, Ph.D. et al.): Why Gravity is NOT a Force.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU>

But even according to fluid dynamics, friction with the interplanetary 
medium will gradually decrease the semi-major axis of the secondary.  OTOH, 
though, angular momentum can be, and in the case of Terra and Luna is being, 
transferred from Terra to Luna from rotational angular momentum due to the 
tidal friction.  Since the interplanetary medium is mostly empty 
(classically), this should more than compensate for the friction.]
 
> , I'm assuming KenSeto is trying to solve the problem of aether drag,
> i.e., if we assume that an aether exists,

There is no aether drag, and no aether (required).  Get over it.

> then it must slow down the
> planets and moons, eventually making them crash into the sun.
> 
> Note that an aether is not ruled out by Einstein. […]

Repeating nonsense does not make it true.


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597948

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> A̶n̶g̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ m̶o̶m̶e̶n̶t̶u̶m̶ o̶f̶ a̶ p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ m̶a̶s̶s̶ m̶ (i̶n̶ u̶n̶i̶t̶s̶ w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ‖r̶⃗‖ = 1):
> 
>       L̴͈̜͍̟̜̪͌̑͋͛̋̔̊⃗͘ ≔ m̷̢͈̣̠̃̔̓́͛͒͂̽ (r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐⃗͝ × v̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐⃗͝) = r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐⃗͝ × (m̷̢͈̣̠̃̔̓́͛͒͂̽ v̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐⃗͝) = r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐⃗͝ × p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́⃗̕͝
> 
> ⇒ ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽L̴͈̜͍̟̜̪͌̑͋͛̋̔̊⃗͘/ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ = ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐⃗͝/ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ × p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́⃗̕͝ + r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐⃗͝ × ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́⃗̕͝/ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ
>         = v̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐⃗͝     × p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́⃗̕͝ + r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝ × F̷̨̻̃͛̑͑̅́̓͒⃗ = r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐⃗͝ × F̷̨̻̃͛̑͑̅́̓͒⃗.
> 
> [T̶h̶i̶s̶ q̶u̶a̶n̶t̶i̶t̶y̶ i̶s̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ c̶a̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ t̶h̶e̶ *t̶o̶r̶q̶u̶e̶* τ⃗.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597975

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Aether Regaind wrote: 
> 
> > From: 
> >> ... if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able 
> > to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. It will 
> > crash into the earth in a short time.
> This appears to be common misconception (I just read it on Quora the other 
> day). It is easily disproved (actually an exercise for first-year Physics 
> students). 
> 
> Angular momentum of a point with mass m (in units where ‖r⃗‖ = 1): 
> 
> L⃗ ≔ m (r⃗ × v⃗) = r⃗ × (m v⃗) = r⃗ × p⃗ 
> 
> ⇒ dL⃗/dt = dr⃗/dt × p⃗ + r⃗ × dp⃗/dt 
> = v⃗ × p⃗ + r × F⃗ 
> = r⃗ × F⃗. 
> 
> [This quantity is also called the *torque* τ⃗.) 
> 
> If 
> 
> F⃗ = −f(1/r) r⃗ 
> 
> as it is in the case of the gravitational force 
> 
> F⃗ = −G M m/r² r⃗/r = −G M m/r³ r⃗, 
> 
> then 
> 
> ⇒ dL⃗/dt = r⃗ × F⃗ = r⃗ × [−f(1/r) r⃗] = −f(1/r) [r⃗ × r⃗] = 0⃗. 
> 
> [See also: <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>, 20:04] 
> 
> IOW, orbital angular momentum would be conserved not despite, but *because* 
> gravity would be fully described by a single attractive force. (The only 
> other possibility would be no force at all.) 
> 
> [It actually is not: According to general relativity, there is no 
> gravitational force (gravitational effects are a consequence of the 
> curvature of spacetime instead), and such a system will gradually lose 
> energy to emitted gravitational waves, and so the semi-major axis of the 
> orbit of a secondary will decrease. However, the timescales in the case of 
> a planet and a moon or a star and a planet(ary system) are too large to be 
> considerable (by contrast to e.g. close binary black holes or binary neutron 
> stars, see GW150914 and GW170817, respectively). 
> 
> Veritasium (Derek Muller, Ph.D. et al.): Why Gravity is NOT a Force. 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU> 
> 
> But even according to fluid dynamics, friction with the interplanetary 
> medium will gradually decrease the semi-major axis of the secondary. OTOH, 
> though, angular momentum can be, and in the case of Terra and Luna is being, 
> transferred from Terra to Luna from rotational angular momentum due to the 
> tidal friction. Since the interplanetary medium is mostly empty 
> (classically), this should more than compensate for the friction.]
> > , I'm assuming KenSeto is trying to solve the problem of aether drag, 
> > i.e., if we assume that an aether exists,
> There is no aether drag, and no aether (required). Get over it.

Einstein took back that the aether is not necessary.
Were you not paying attention?
He said in the 1920's it was his space time immaterial.
And was absolutely necessary....

Mitchell Raemsch

> > then it must slow down the 
> > planets and moons, eventually making them crash into the sun. 
> >
> > Note that an aether is not ruled out by Einstein. […] 
> 
> Repeating nonsense does not make it true. 
> 
> 
> PointedEars 
> -- 
> I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be. 
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597978

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 2:37:20 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> There is no aether drag, and no aether (required). Get over it.
> 
> Einstein took back that the aether is not necessary.
> Were you not paying attention?
> He said in the 1920's it was his space time immaterial.
> And was absolutely necessary....

Not true. That, including the mater, describes the world, say the
Universe, macro, quantum etc *_domain_scales_*. Also known as
*_The_Holly_Ghost_* in *_The_Bible_*, against which */_you_may_NOT_sin_/*.
You get _forgiveness_ for sins against God, Jesus etc,
*_except_The_Holly_Ghost_*. It stays actually, that before */_God_/*,
*_The_Holly_Ghost_* existed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597588

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:52:02 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-12-13 21:19:02 +0000, JanPB said: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:01:10 AM UTC-8, seto...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >> The answer is: NO 
> >> Why? Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is 
> >> not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years. 
> >> It will crash into the earth in a short time. 
> >> Gravity is a composite force as follows: 
> >> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because 
> >> they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the 
> >> universe expands. 
> >> 
> >> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon 
> >> are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This 
> >> causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This 
> >> repulsive effect is called the CRE force. 
> >> 
> >> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of 
> >> the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the 
> >> CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the 
> >> earth for bi;;ions of years. 
> > 
> > A childish fantasy.
> There is a simple experiment that one can do that will indicate that 
> there is no repulsive force (though I don't suppose Ken "Idiot MM is a 
> valid TOE" Seto will be able to draw the obvious conclusion). Attach a 
> string of suitable length -- 5 m -- to an object like a coffee mug, and 
> swing it around your body. It will adopt a circular orbit and stay in 
> it as long as you continue to swing it. But where is the repulsive 
> force that stops it rushing in to hit you? There is none, and the 
> string is incapable of pushing.

Idiot your finger holding the other end of the string had to go around in circles to maintain the coffee mug in orbit. Gee you are so stupid.
> -- 
> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly 
> in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597598

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:52:02 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Pj4gVGhlcmUgaXMgYSBzaW1wbGUgZXhwZXJpbWVudCB0aGF0IG9uZSBjYW4gZG8gdGhhdCB3aWxsIGluZGljYXRlIHRoYXQKPj4gdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcmVwdWxzaXZlIGZvcmNlICh0aG91Z2ggSSBkb24ndCBzdXBwb3NlIEtlbiAiSWRpb3QgTU0gaXMgYQo+PiB2YWxpZCBUT0UiIFNldG8gd2lsbCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGRyYXcgdGhlIG9idmlvdXMgY29uY2x1c2lvbikuIEF0dGFjaCBhCj4+IHN0cmluZyBvZiBzdWl0YWJsZSBsZW5ndGggLS0gNSBtIC0tIHRvIGFuIG9iamVjdCBsaWtlIGEgY29mZmVlIG11ZywgYW5kCj4+IHN3aW5nIGl0IGFyb3VuZCB5b3VyIGJvZHkuIEl0IHdpbGwgYWRvcHQgYSBjaXJjdWxhciBvcmJpdCBhbmQgc3RheSBpbiBpdAo+PiBhcyBsb25nIGFzIHlvdSBjb250aW51ZSB0byBzd2luZyBpdC4gQnV0IHdoZXJlIGlzIHRoZSByZXB1bHNpdmUgZm9yY2UKPj4gdGhhdCBzdG9wcyBpdCBydXNoaW5nIGluIHRvIGhpdCB5b3U/IFRoZXJlIGlzIG5vbmUsIGFuZCB0aGUgc3RyaW5nIGlzCj4+IGluY2FwYWJsZSBvZiBwdXNoaW5nLg==
> 
PiBJZGlvdCB5b3VyIGZpbmdlciBob2xkaW5nIHRoZSBvdGhlciBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIHN0cmluZyBoYWQgdG8gZ28gYXJvdW5kIGluCj4gY2lyY2xlcyB0byBtYWludGFpbiB0aGUgY29mZmVlIG11ZyBpbiBvcmJpdC4gR2VlIHlvdSBhcmUgc28gc3R1cGlkLg==

nothing.

begin-base64 644 aa.mp3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====

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597477

On 12/13/2022 5:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

> The answer is: NO

Assertion without evidence.

> Why?  Because if gravity is a single attractive force then the Moon is not able to maintain an orbit around the earth for billions of years.

Unsupported assertion, so worthless in physics. In addition, Newton 
proved only one force is necessary for a closed orbit.

> It will crash into the earth in a short time.

Assertion without evidence, and disproved by Newton.

> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> 1. It is an attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the E-Matrix in the same direction as the universe expands.

Blithering word salad, plus assertion with no supporting evidence.

> 2. The structure  of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.This causes a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon. This repulsive effect is called the CRE force.

More word salad, assertions without evidence, plus creating make-believe 
things (E matrix, CRE force). Besides, the earth-moon force is 
attractive, not repulsive.

> 
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the earth for bi;;ions of years.

Assertions without experimental evidence, as the scientific method requires.

You're still a wackjob, Stupid Ken, without any contributions to physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597518

Volney wrote:

>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined results of
>> the above attractive force of gravity and the repulsive results of the
>> CRE force. This enables the moon to keep an orbiting motion around the
>> earth for bi;;ions of years.
> 
> Assertions without experimental evidence, as the scientific method
> requires.
> 
> You're still a wackjob, Stupid Ken, without any contributions to
> physics.

ohh my butt, they are sending the zelenske "patriot" missiles, for 
whatever obscure reason, free of charge, then those fools paying in 
milliards for them, are going to pull their fingers for *crap* they paid 
for, which doesn't even work.

it looks like, Russia alone, no help from China etc, would take khakhole 
khazar america over in max 2 weeks. Because the distance. Otherwise, in 2 
days. The Nuland, the bidans clan etc, are going to face *_Nuremberg_2_* 
you stinking capitalists. For the *bio_weapons_labs* in fucking uKraine, 
terrorism blowing up in huge explosion and the biggest environmental 
catastrophe ever registered etc, arming nazis by intent since 2014, 
supporting genocide on russian people and so on, as 
*_"tremendous_opportunities"_* they supposedly are supposed to make money 
on all that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web