Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460524

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

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
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	2018-06-06 18:01 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<pf97ha$qge$1@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <4c1d8942-5060-4471-8563-982dc7be176b@googlegroups.com> <pf6ccq$ik6$1@dont-email.me> <fb8a6c84-e536-4880-b519-0c586cc64745@googlegroups.com> <pf7588$un6$1@dont-email.me> <f1a93aab-29da-4af6-a10d-9d19bc1bffb2@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/5/2018 5:12 PM, kenseto wrote:

>> >>> Sigh Newton's gravity is a composite force.

Assertion is not evidence, Stupid Ken.

>> >> WRONG! Newton's gravity is F = GMm/r^2. Notice how there is a single
>> >> term on the right side? There is no "+" symbol to indicate where two
>> >> forces are added, nor a "-" symbol where two forces are subtracted. ONE
>> >> TERM, and definitely NOT a composite force.

>> > Hey idiot....if Newton gravity is not a composite force the moon will
>not be maintain a table orbit. Gee you are stupid.

Assertion is not evidence, Stupid Ken.

>> Ken, for the millionth time, Newton PROVED that only a single force
>> (gravity) was needed for a stable orbit. You have not disproved his
>> proof, all you can do is assert that there must be a composite force.

>For the billions of time, Newton's gravity force is not  single force. 
>It is a composite force, that's why the moon is able to maintain a 
>stable orbit.

Assertion is not evidence, Stupid Ken. Not even if you assert it a 
billion times.

>> Either PROVE Newton wrong (and get a ticket to Sweden!) or admit that
>> you are wrong. Of course, you'll do neither, just falsely claim that
>> there is a composite force causing the moon to orbit.

>I didn't say that Newton was wrong.

Yes you did. Newton PROVED only a single force was needed, and you
asserted that there had to be a second force for the system to be stable.
That is saying that Newton was wrong even if you didn't say those exact
words. Once again, Newton PROVED only a single, attractive force was
necessary. One force. Not two forces combined into one, one force. Period.

> I said that he didn't know that his 
>gravity force is composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive 
>effect between the earth and the moon.

See? You Asserted that there was a second force, and it was necessary
for the system to be stable. So you are claiming Newton was wrong because
Newton proved just one force was necessary.

Can you Prove your assertion? If so, remember it gets cold in Sweden!

>> > Hey idiot, the centrifugal force is not (pseudo) in my theory.

>> Well, your theory is wrong, then!

>Can you explain why centrifugal force is (pseudo)? Don't just make assertion.

Pseudoforces appear to be real when certain assumptions are made. These
assumptions almost always involve non-inertial frames.
For example, a centrifuge's rotor can be considered as a (very!) 
non-inertial reference frame that rotates with the rotor. In this 
non-inertial frame, there appears to be a very strong outward force, and
an object allowed to move will fly rapidly away from the center of 
rotation.

Same as if you are standing in a room. There is a non-inertial frame
that you in the room are stationary in. Yet there is a force (gravity)
pulling you down. In GR gravity is a pseudoforce in noninertial frames,
even if gravity seems very real to you!

>> > It causes tangential acceleration for a satellite and that's why it 
>> > is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.

>> What? Tangential acceleration? The moon is orbiting the earth faster and
>> faster??? I thought it was a constant ~29.5 days!

>No idiot...tangential acceleration is what causes the moon in a circular 
>orbit.

Tangential forces act in the direction of the motion of the object in its
circular path. If the moon experienced a tangential acceleration, as you
assert, would mean it would move in its orbit faster and faster (or slower
and slower if opposite) meaning the moon would take less (or more) time to
complete one orbit. Yet we know the moon has taken about 29.5 days to do
so since the dawn of recorded history.

Are you creating new meanings for existing words again?

>> >> Also if you use the centrifugal pseudoforce to explain how centrifuges
>> >> work, they work because the centrifugal force forces the dense/heavy
>> >> matter OUTWARD and the lighter/less dense matter gets displaced inward.
>> >> NOT TANGENTIALLY.

>> > Hey moron....not just OUTWARD also a circular motion around the center 
>> > of rotation.

>> Not outward.

>No not just outward, the moon must also experiencing a tangential 
>acceleration to maintain a stable orbit.

Assertion is not evidence.

>> There are a zillion Youtube videos of amusement park rides with names
>> like the Gravitron or Roundup that are basically centrifuges with people
>
>> forced against the wall. They are forced against the wall, they don't
>> slide around the inside faster and faster!!!
>> Here is just one video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0H7TYzcMaY
>> Some of them tilt so that the riders are upside down for part of the
>> ride (forced UPWARD).

>So you agree that it is the centrifugal force that forces the person 
>against the wall....right?

In the non-inertial rotating reference frame, it appears real and is
against the wall. (In reality the wall is pushing/keeping the people
from following an inertial trajectory, one which would throw them across
the park)

Again from the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0H7TYzcMaY
the camera is stationary in the rotating frame so in the video there
Appears to be a strange force holding the people against the wall.

>> > What you said is gibberish nonsense. Centripetal force without the 
>> ? cenfrifugal force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.

>> Wrong, Newton PROVED mathematically that only centripetal force
>> (gravity) was necessary. What have you proved? Nothing?

>For the zillions of time....Newton's gravity is not a single force.

And for the zillionth time, assertion is not a valid argument. Not even
if repeated a zillion times.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

(Thread has 565 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)

csiph-web