Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460741

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	2018-06-08 22:31 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pff044$sdo$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <098d7829-00e9-4b8b-bc00-c00dc18ed837@googlegroups.com> <pfe1c6$15c7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <03a4f92a-df44-4c9b-ac67-cd38887e00e0@googlegroups.com> <pfec56$1pu8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <7c79803b-c3b6-4f13-aec3-41401f1021dd@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite:
>>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height.
>>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket
>>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to
>>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. 
>>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Okay, Ken.
>>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket?
>>>>>>>> They shut it off!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off:
>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing
>>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity.
>>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to
>>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction.
>>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In my theory:
>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there
>>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force.
>>>> 
>>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the
>>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong?
>>> 
>>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. 
>> 
>> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can
>> treat them independently. 
> 
> The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the
> tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force).
>> 
>> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential
>> acceleration, so no tangential force. 
> 
> When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration.

There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for
the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential
acceleration of the moon, how would you do it?

> 
>  
>>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth.
>>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the
>>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same
>>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive
>>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to
>>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s
>>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn!
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force
>>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow
>>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single
>>>> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are
>>>> saying that’s not possible. 
>>> 
>>> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between
>>> the earth and the moon. 
>> 
>> But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify
>> a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the
>> observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but
>> it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. 
> 
> But you just admitted that there are radial and tangential components.
> All I know is: radial acceleration without the constant tangential
> acceleration will not give stable orbit.

And how do you know this? 
Newton says otherwise and proved it. So where is your proof he is wrong?

> 
>> 
>>> In fact modern physics have no idea what causes gravity between the earth
>>> and the moon. GRT describes the mathematical curve path follow by the
>>> moon but that is not the cause of gravity.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion),
>>>>>> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches
>>>>>> the Newtonian desc...
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

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

csiph-web