Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458673

Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?
Date	2018-05-21 14:50 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdumbd$pcb$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <4de9d3d6-95d9-4910-b14e-88081c838b88@googlegroups.com> <pdsfev$13r3$2@gioia.aioe.org> <9c0f91d9-e1c4-4a26-982b-0c27443d259a@googlegroups.com> <pdskk1$1cp7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <0fb1dd3d-aa17-4ec1-b0fe-5f35ab316798@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about
>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education
>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that
>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t
>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about 
>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education 
>>>>>>>>> about gravity.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a
>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I
>>>>>>>> described in the following link:
>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in
>>>>>>> the basics. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity
>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about
>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with
>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been
>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially,
>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from
>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> No comment?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From Wikipedia:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also
>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of
>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame
>>>>>> of reference.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of
>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component.
>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>> 
>>>> Motion is not a force. 
>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal
>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center
>>>> and away from the center. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.
>> 
>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of
>> motion. High school basics. 
> 
> Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. 

A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. 

> High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. 

Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the
force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.”

> All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity.
> 
>> 
>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on
>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on
>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every
>>>>>> single time. 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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

Thread

csiph-web