Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458731
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 14:06 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdv5cb$1luj$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <0fb1dd3d-aa17-4ec1-b0fe-5f35ab316798@googlegroups.com> <pdumbd$pcb$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5e431d24-64c3-4c21-a67f-8f3ba84d6c89@googlegroups.com> <pdusna$15st$2@gioia.aioe.org> <2a865004-32e1-44d3-afcb-7a278e866de8@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
On 5/21/18 12:29 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and
>>> maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object.
>>
>> That is true. The centripetal force does not provide or maintain the
>> tangential motion. It can’t. It has no component in the tangential
>> direction because the centripetal force is strictly radial.
> 
> Too we agree on something.
> 
>>
>> But on the other hand, no force is required to maintain the tangential
>> motion. You are incorrect to believe that a force in that direction is
>> required. The correct explanation is in your book and is different than
>> what you’ve made up.
> 
> ROTFLOL.....so curved tangential motion and maintaining stable orbiting motion requires no force.....it just happens so we can claim that Newton explanation of gravity is complete? I don’t think so. I think you guy are spewing bull shit. I thin physicists don’t have a clue about the cause of gravity and they just go along with Newton’s explanation.

Ken, I realize that you're gamely looking for some reason -- any reason 
-- for people to think your work is worthwhile.

You generated your work from a position of the uneducated. You didn't 
read up on basic physics, and so in "thinking for yourself" you made a 
ton of bad guesses which are counter to basic high school physics.

Somehow you think that unless Newtonian physics is a complete theory, 
then everything associated with Newtonian physics is wrong, and you 
should then make things up according to your "thinking for yourself". 
This apparently involved trying to explain circular motion for even a 
rock whirled on a string (which doesn't have anything to do with 
gravity) and invoking both a tangential force and a centrifugal force.

Newton showed that circular motion from ANY centripetal force requires 
no tangential force and no centrifugal force. That applies whether the 
centripetal force is from electrostatics, or a string, or a spring, or 
the tension in a rod, or a magnetic field, or gravity. And it is true 
even if his theory of gravity was incomplete.

You are grasping at straws and looking pretty desperate in the attempt. 
The backpedaling you've done in this thread has only made it worse.

> My theory of gravity gives valid explanation for gravity.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thread

csiph-web