Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #576987 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-13 03:11 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-28 19:36 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstractions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 03:11 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 09:13 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 19:20 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 05:17 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 06:16 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:44 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 07:08 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 16:13 +0100
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 07:17 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 07:56 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 16:11 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 16:04 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 01:38 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 03:37 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:32 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 08:26 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 17:06 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 09:25 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 10:00 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 18:45 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 06:13 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:55 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 07:43 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 16:27 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 08:37 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 06:43 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 06:58 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 19:20 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 23:09 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-20 21:58 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 03:16 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 05:18 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-21 09:49 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 16:04 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-21 19:23 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 23:30 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 05:29 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 14:58 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 05:14 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 13:34 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 16:07 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 00:13 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 05:18 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 14:42 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-22 10:18 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 08:43 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 17:05 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 04:13 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 14:02 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 06:10 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 03:58 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 13:55 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-25 16:07 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 04:08 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 13:55 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 06:11 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 06:51 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 15:17 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 09:55 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 18:28 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 10:49 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 19:03 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 05:10 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:52 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 05:59 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 14:11 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 06:02 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 16:00 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 11:44 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 00:11 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:34 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 05:18 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:52 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 14:21 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 05:58 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 16:00 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-28 11:47 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 16:59 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:15 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 12:23 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 07:03 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 00:07 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-23 12:15 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 09:49 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 04:17 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Vinal Rice <wiw@vncspc.ca> - 2022-02-25 13:14 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 05:20 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-25 16:19 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-25 13:47 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 10:21 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 15:46 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 08:02 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 11:10 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 08:46 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 16:11 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 16:00 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-16 20:38 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 08:17 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 13:02 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Calvin Wood <riew@cmvne.na> - 2022-02-17 18:10 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 10:14 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 10:36 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 18:56 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 06:25 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:55 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 07:45 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 16:27 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 06:53 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 16:14 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:15 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 03:40 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-16 11:26 -0500
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 08:36 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 08:21 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. Bradlee Evers <uuda@cnvwa.ni> - 2022-02-18 14:48 +0000
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstractions. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 16:55 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstractions. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 11:42 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstractions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 20:35 -0800
Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstractions. Mitchell Leary <be@nonua.in> - 2022-02-28 19:36 +0000
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 03:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstractions. |
| Message-ID | <3eb79881-5a8d-41c2-a3ce-b5c3d806505an@googlegroups.com> |
The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 13:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. |
| Message-ID | <sub16f$p8v$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576987 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining orbital mechanics”. Idiot. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 09:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abstract ions. |
| Message-ID | <c438a376-654a-4f5e-bf84-d1fa677d441fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576994 |
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > > distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > > > Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > orbital mechanics”. Idiot. Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them 2. In order for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years, there must be a repulsive CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got the wrong model to develop his GRT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 19:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <sublli$fta$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577009 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>> >> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > > Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > > 2. In order for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > years, there must be a repulsive > CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > > 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > the wrong model to develop his GRT. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-14 05:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <2205b61f-52c0-43b0-b8a0-5588cee69f42n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577017 |
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>> > >> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > > > > Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > > 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > > universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > > based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > > the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. Idiot, that’s part of gravity. However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash inti=o the earth over time. The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. > > > > 2. In order for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > > years, there must be a repulsive > > CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > > moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. > > > > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > > opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > > > > 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > > wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > > gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > > the wrong model to develop his GRT. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <sudo2t$1lem$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577063 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>> >>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>> >>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > > Idiot, that’s part of gravity. Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash > inti=o the earth over time. Not true. You fail high school physics again. > The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. >>> >>> 2. In order for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of >>> years, there must be a repulsive >>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the >>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > > Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Nope. You fail high school physics again. > Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. >>> >>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two >>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently >>> >>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No >>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of >>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got >>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 06:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <2cbc1774-c43d-43d8-bf6f-5e8f7b548a40n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577074 |
On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>> > >>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>> > >>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > > > > Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > > However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash > > inti=o the earth over time. > Not true. You fail high school physics again. Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. > > > The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. > >>> > >>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > >>> years, there must be a repulsive > >>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > >>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > > > > Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > Nope. You fail high school physics again. > > Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. > >>> > >>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > >>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > >>> > >>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > >>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > >>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > >>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 14:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <suge8e$nuf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577184 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. >>> >>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. >> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. > >>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash >>> inti=o the earth over time. >> Not true. You fail high school physics again. > Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. > it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. > They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” > .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a > single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you never read. > The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: > the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string > and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential > direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. >> >>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. >>>>> >>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of >>>>> years, there must be a repulsive >>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the >>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. >>> >>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >> Nope. You fail high school physics again. >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two >>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently >>>>> >>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No >>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of >>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got >>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 07:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <6530268b-fd9a-4aab-b9d4-d61de5dd53f0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577189 |
On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:44:35 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > >>> > >>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > >> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > > The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know > what words mean because I have read those books. Odd, poor stinker, you've demonstrated many times that what you read in the books is what you like at the moment instead what is written there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 16:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <sugfus$1hq6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577192 |
Maciej "poor stinker" Wozniak wrote: > On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:44:35 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. >>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. >>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. >> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know >> what words mean because I have read those books. > > Odd, [snip profanity], you've demonstrated many times that what > you read in the books is what you like at the moment instead > what is written there. The only demonstrated stuff of this kind is that there is old Polish laughing stock that does not like what is written there. And, of course, nobody cares about the feelings of this old Poish laughing stock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 07:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <6195579a-3824-4e04-b0ca-07dcd5869e93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577193 |
On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 16:13:38 UTC+1, Python wrote: > Maciej "poor stinker" Wozniak wrote: > > On Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 15:44:35 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > >>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > >>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > >> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know > >> what words mean because I have read those books. > > > > Odd, [snip profanity], you've demonstrated many times that what > > you read in the books is what you like at the moment instead > > what is written there. > The only demonstrated stuff of this kind is that there is old Polish And 2+2=sqrt(7)=2+3, Godel's theorem is provable in Peano arithmetics and so on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 07:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <b5ace1d4-733e-4155-b119-c36b7a76d7c5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577189 |
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > >>> > >>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > >> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > > The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know > what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the > words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. model is correct and No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. > > > >>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash > >>> inti=o the earth over time. > >> Not true. You fail high school physics again. > > Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: > No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? > > > it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. > > They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” > > .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a > > single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? > Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform > circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you > never read. > > The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: > > the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string > > and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential > > direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. > >> > >>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > >>>>> years, there must be a repulsive > >>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > >>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > >>> > >>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >> Nope. You fail high school physics again. > >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > >>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > >>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > >>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > >>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 16:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <sugjbn$1e8o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577204 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. >>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. >>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. >> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know >> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the >> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. >> model is correct and > > No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books > is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m going to favor the high school physics. You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been true. Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people took him seriously? Ever? How are such pretenders treated that have tried? >>> >>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash >>>>> inti=o the earth over time. >>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. >>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: >> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. > I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? >> >>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. >>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” >>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a >>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? >> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform >> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you >> never read. >>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: >>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string >>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential >>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. >>>> >>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of >>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive >>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the >>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two >>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No >>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of >>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got >>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-15 16:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <d5463b06-9c03-4225-8937-9af548d9e2bdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577207 |
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > >>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > >>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > >> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know > >> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the > >> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. > >> model is correct and > > > > No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books > > is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. > Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics > and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m > going to favor the high school physics. Moron, you can't whirl a ball in circular motion without the fingers holding the other end of the string, moving in circular motion, applying a centrifugal force to the ball. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” > even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been > true. You are so fuckinfg stupid you don’t understand what you read. > > Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject > has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people > took him seriously? Ever? > > How are such pretenders treated that have tried? > >>> > >>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash > >>>>> inti=o the earth over time. > >>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. > >>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: > >> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. > > I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? > >> > >>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. > >>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” > >>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a > >>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? > >> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform > >> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you > >> never read. > >>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: > >>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string > >>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential > >>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. > >>>> > >>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > >>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive > >>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > >>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. > >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > >>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > >>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > >>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > >>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 01:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <suhkj4$1n5g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577252 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>>>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>>>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>>>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>>>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >>>>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. >>>>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. >>>>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. >>>> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know >>>> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the >>>> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. >>>> model is correct and >>> >>> No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books >>> is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. >> Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics >> and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m >> going to favor the high school physics. > > Moron, you can't whirl a ball in circular motion without the fingers > holding the other end of the string, moving in circular motion, applying > a centrifugal force to the ball. That’s one unbalanced force, Ken. High school physics. > Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> >> You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” >> even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been >> true. > > You are so fuckinfg stupid you don’t understand what you read. Hard for you to judge because you haven’t read any of it. >> >> Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject >> has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people >> took him seriously? Ever? >> >> How are such pretenders treated that have tried? >>>>> >>>>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash >>>>>>> inti=o the earth over time. >>>>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. >>>>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: >>>> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. >>> I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? >>>> >>>>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. >>>>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” >>>>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a >>>>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? >>>> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform >>>> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you >>>> never read. >>>>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: >>>>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string >>>>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential >>>>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of >>>>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive >>>>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the >>>>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two >>>>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No >>>>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of >>>>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got >>>>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 03:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <d33dda33-406d-48f0-9d54-e48a4ede0429n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577253 |
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>>>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>>>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>>>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>>>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >>>>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > >>>>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > >>>>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > >>>> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know > >>>> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the > >>>> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. > >>>> model is correct and > >>> > >>> No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books > >>> is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. > >> Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics > >> and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m > >> going to favor the high school physics. > > > > Moron, you can't whirl a ball in circular motion without the fingers > > holding the other end of the string, moving in circular motion, applying > > a centrifugal force to the ball. > That’s one unbalanced force, Ken. > High school physics. Moron, the string provides: the centrifugal force balance out the centripetal force that’s why the ball is able to maintain in circular motion. High school physics. > > Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > >> > >> You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” > >> even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been > >> true. > > > > You are so fuckinfg stupid you don’t understand what you read. > Hard for you to judge because you haven’t read any of it. > >> > >> Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject > >> has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people > >> took him seriously? Ever? > >> > >> How are such pretenders treated that have tried? > >>>>> > >>>>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash > >>>>>>> inti=o the earth over time. > >>>>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. > >>>>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: > >>>> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. > >>> I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? > >>>> > >>>>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. > >>>>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” > >>>>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a > >>>>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? > >>>> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform > >>>> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you > >>>> never read. > >>>>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: > >>>>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string > >>>>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential > >>>>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > >>>>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive > >>>>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > >>>>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. > >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > >>>>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > >>>>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > >>>>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > >>>>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-16 13:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <suiucj$1qj7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577268 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>>>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>>>>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>>>>>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>>>>>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>>>>>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>>>>>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >>>>>>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. >>>>>>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. >>>>>>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. >>>>>> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know >>>>>> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the >>>>>> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. >>>>>> model is correct and >>>>> >>>>> No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books >>>>> is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. >>>> Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics >>>> and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m >>>> going to favor the high school physics. >>> >>> Moron, you can't whirl a ball in circular motion without the fingers >>> holding the other end of the string, moving in circular motion, applying >>> a centrifugal force to the ball. >> That’s one unbalanced force, Ken. >> High school physics. > > Moron, the string provides: the centrifugal force balance out the > centripetal force that’s why the ball is able to maintain in circular > motion. High school physics. That’s not what high school physics says. High school physics says there is no force balance for a ball on a string. Common sense says you can’t push with a string. > >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>> >>>> >>>> You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” >>>> even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been >>>> true. >>> >>> You are so fuckinfg stupid you don’t understand what you read. >> Hard for you to judge because you haven’t read any of it. >>>> >>>> Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject >>>> has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people >>>> took him seriously? Ever? >>>> >>>> How are such pretenders treated that have tried? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash >>>>>>>>> inti=o the earth over time. >>>>>>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. >>>>>>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: >>>>>> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. >>>>> I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? >>>>>> >>>>>>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. >>>>>>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” >>>>>>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a >>>>>>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? >>>>>> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform >>>>>> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you >>>>>> never read. >>>>>>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: >>>>>>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string >>>>>>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential >>>>>>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of >>>>>>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive >>>>>>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the >>>>>>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two >>>>>>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No >>>>>>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of >>>>>>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got >>>>>>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-17 08:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <9e397525-3d21-4be0-8a2e-90f7595a206an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577272 |
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 8:32:06 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of gravity called DTG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining > >>>>>>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the > >>>>>>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is > >>>>>>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in > >>>>>>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them > >>>>>>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. > >>>>>>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. > >>>>>>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. > >>>>>> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know > >>>>>> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the > >>>>>> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. > >>>>>> model is correct and > >>>>> > >>>>> No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books > >>>>> is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. > >>>> Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics > >>>> and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m > >>>> going to favor the high school physics. > >>> > >>> Moron, you can't whirl a ball in circular motion without the fingers > >>> holding the other end of the string, moving in circular motion, applying > >>> a centrifugal force to the ball. > >> That’s one unbalanced force, Ken. > >> High school physics. > > > > Moron, the string provides: the centrifugal force balance out the > > centripetal force that’s why the ball is able to maintain in circular > > motion. High school physics. > That’s not what high school physics says. High school physics says there is > no force balance for a ball on a string. > > Common sense says you can’t push with a string. Stupid moron Odd, the string is pulling in and the ball is pulling he string away from the fingers. Gee you are stupid even for a woodworker. > > > >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” > >>>> even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been > >>>> true. > >>> > >>> You are so fuckinfg stupid you don’t understand what you read. > >> Hard for you to judge because you haven’t read any of it. > >>>> > >>>> Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject > >>>> has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people > >>>> took him seriously? Ever? > >>>> > >>>> How are such pretenders treated that have tried? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash > >>>>>>>>> inti=o the earth over time. > >>>>>>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. > >>>>>>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: > >>>>>> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. > >>>>> I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. > >>>>>>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” > >>>>>>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a > >>>>>>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? > >>>>>> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform > >>>>>> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you > >>>>>> never read. > >>>>>>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: > >>>>>>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string > >>>>>>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential > >>>>>>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of > >>>>>>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive > >>>>>>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the > >>>>>>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>>>>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. > >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two > >>>>>>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No > >>>>>>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got > >>>>>>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-17 17:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <sulvaj$in3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #577440 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 8:32:06 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:44:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:20:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity called DTG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DTG explains orbital mechanics,; why gravity is able to act on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance; there is no need for the gravitons......etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lol. Having an reason for gravity to act over a distance is not “explaining >>>>>>>>>>>>>> orbital mechanics”. Idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, DTG is composed of two forces: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the fact experimentally that any two massive objects moving in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same direction in the E-Matrix will cause an attractive force between them >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s not explaining orbital mechanics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, that’s part of gravity. >>>>>>>>>> Still hasn’t got anything to do with orbital mechanics. >>>>>>>>> The woodworker don’t know what orbital mechanics means. >>>>>>>> Oh, yes, I do. You see, I’ve read physics books and you have not. I know >>>>>>>> what words mean because I have read those books. You do not know what the >>>>>>>> words mean because you’ve not read the books. It’s really pretty simple. >>>>>>>> model is correct and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No you don’t. You assumed that the current model based on published books >>>>>>> is correct and you based on this false assumption to criticize any new theory. >>>>>> Yeah, you know, if it comes down to a choice between high school physics >>>>>> and the ideas of a guy who’s never learned even high school physics, I’m >>>>>> going to favor the high school physics. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, you can't whirl a ball in circular motion without the fingers >>>>> holding the other end of the string, moving in circular motion, applying >>>>> a centrifugal force to the ball. >>>> That’s one unbalanced force, Ken. >>>> High school physics. >>> >>> Moron, the string provides: the centrifugal force balance out the >>> centripetal force that’s why the ball is able to maintain in circular >>> motion. High school physics. >> That’s not what high school physics says. High school physics says there is >> no force balance for a ball on a string. >> >> Common sense says you can’t push with a string. > > Stupid moron Odd, the string is pulling in and the ball is pulling he > string away from the fingers. Gee you are stupid even for a woodworker. High school mistake. Those are forces on different objects, not balancing forces on the same object. Newton’s third law that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction does NOT mean that force on an object are balanced. How did you ever get to be an engineer without passing high school physics? >>> >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to think that people should pay attention to your “new physics” >>>>>> even though you can’t do high school physics. As though that has EVER been >>>>>> true. >>>>> >>>>> You are so fuckinfg stupid you don’t understand what you read. >>>> Hard for you to judge because you haven’t read any of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know of ANY case where someone untrained in the basics of a subject >>>>>> has successfully created a revolutionary idea in that subject, and people >>>>>> took him seriously? Ever? >>>>>> >>>>>> How are such pretenders treated that have tried? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> However, if gravity is just attractive then the moon would just crash >>>>>>>>>>> inti=o the earth over time. >>>>>>>>>> Not true. You fail high school physics again. >>>>>>>>> Moron, they (physicists) failed to realize that gravity is a composite force: >>>>>>>> No, that’s just your excuse for failing high school physics. >>>>>>> I found a new theory of gravity . How is that I failed High school physics? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive force called CRE. >>>>>>>>> They call this composite force as a single attractive force of “Gravity” >>>>>>>>> .....can the woodworker find an experiment on earth to demonstrate that a >>>>>>>>> single attractive is able to maintain an object in orbital motion? >>>>>>>> Yes. Many, many everyday examples are covered in the chapter on uniform >>>>>>>> circular motion in an introductory physics book. You know, the book you >>>>>>>> never read. >>>>>>>>> The answer is NO. For example: whirling a ball at the end of a string: >>>>>>>>> the ball experiences a centripetal force from the tension of the string >>>>>>>>> and the centrifugal force on the ball wanting to go in a tangential >>>>>>>>> direction. It appears that this is too complex for a woodworker to comprehend. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The repulsive CRE is preventing it from crashing into the earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. In or der for the moon to maintain a stable orbit for billions of >>>>>>>>>>>>> years, there must be a repulsive >>>>>>>>>>>>> CRE force and this force is derived from the fact that the earth and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>>>>>> No repulsive force necessary. Nor have you proven it necessary. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, without the CRE force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>>> Nope. You fail high school physics again. >>>>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are just a woodworker. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two >>>>>>>>>>>>> opposing forces acting on the earth and the moon acting on them independently >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Read my paper carefully it is a revolutionary concept of gravity. No >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder Einstein and physicists failed to come up with a proper theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity after 110 years of trying......the reason is that Einstein got >>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong model to develop his GRT. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-17 09:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity is simple, no need for Einstein’s abst ract ions. |
| Message-ID | <0473bdf6-ec1a-43c7-ac5d-5b0595ae692an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577445 |
On Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 18:06:32 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Newton’s third law that says for every action there is an equal and > opposite reaction does NOT mean that force on an object are balanced. It's the idiot woodworker deciding what Newton has written, don't you understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web