Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457470 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-04 05:54 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 09:04 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 260 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 05:54 -0700
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:44 -0700
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 20:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 03:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 20:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 07:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 09:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 19:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 20:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 04:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 06:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-09 06:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 06:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-10 08:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 15:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-10 08:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 08:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 08:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 20:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-12 05:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 07:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-12 07:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-12 15:10 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-12 14:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-12 19:47 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-13 00:54 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-13 06:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:44 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-13 08:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-13 13:25 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-14 06:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-14 18:22 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-15 09:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 18:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-14 05:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 14:12 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-14 13:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-14 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 22:04 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-15 09:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-15 13:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 21:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-16 04:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-16 09:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-16 12:36 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 17:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 10:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 14:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 15:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 16:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 05:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-20 13:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 07:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 09:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 10:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 18:06 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-21 15:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 05:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 10:17 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 10:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 22:04 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-15 09:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-15 13:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 21:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-15 21:15 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 17:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-11 08:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:46 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-16 14:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:38 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-17 05:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 05:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-17 09:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 05:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 15:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 09:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 19:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 22:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 18:53 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 16:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 16:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 06:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 10:24 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 13:57 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:43 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 13:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 21:12 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 17:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 07:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 19:22 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 06:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:51 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 10:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:40 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 06:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 07:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:39 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 14:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-22 06:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 13:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-23 06:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:35 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 21:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-24 05:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:22 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-24 09:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 11:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 18:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-25 05:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:03 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-25 07:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:05 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-25 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 21:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 05:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:11 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 09:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 12:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 02:35 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 19:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-28 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:49 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 14:34 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 07:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 06:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-24 09:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-24 05:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 06:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-24 09:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 11:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-25 05:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-25 07:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-25 13:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 09:38 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 07:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 06:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-28 07:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-28 11:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:14 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 23:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-29 08:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:05 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-29 15:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 22:33 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 07:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:42 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 09:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:20 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 15:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 11:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 19:51 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 13:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 14:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 22:18 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 16:25 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:50 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 08:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 10:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:53 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 14:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:50 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 18:06 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:06 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 10:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 18:06 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 22:48 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 06:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-21 09:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:29 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 09:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:40 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 10:31 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:15 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-17 09:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 05:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 15:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 09:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-17 05:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-17 05:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 21:50 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 05:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-19 05:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-24 05:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-17 00:20 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 08:36 +0100
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 06:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:25 +0100
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-13 06:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:43 +0100
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-13 09:04 -0700
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 05:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? |
| Message-ID | <94c2514f-bcd1-44ac-96f7-c6c2bffa9d3f@googlegroups.com> |
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows: Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other. A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows: 1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. 2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction. 3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force. 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1813b16-0f10-4632-b8ba-de7e89d6b840@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457470 |
kenseto wrote Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? Because the mainstream physics community persistently holds on to its Purely ReligioNutterism Of No Aether No Medium Physics Dogma. Requiring them to Fabricate many Religious Miracles like Gravitons When In actuality Space Time is an Aether like field of a Black Hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 08:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c50877b3-9cae-41f7-bded-3d2e70bb8f3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457482 |
kenseto wrote Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? Because the mainstream physics community persistently holds on to its Purely ReligioNutterism Of No Aether No Medium Physics Dogma. Requiring them to Fabricate many Religious Miracles like Gravitons When In actuality Space Time is an Aether like field of a Black Hole. https://photos.app.goo.gl/gryz6ANH6GGtSRnZ2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 20:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5043ab6-d23f-4ca5-a6af-9437c49ddb2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457470 |
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when > gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? > This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows: > > Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the > curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General > Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical > GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics > failed to reconcile with each other. > > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions > of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether > called the E-Matrix is formulated. > Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the > moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector > of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is > pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector > of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the > tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of > the attractive EM force. > > 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in > the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf The paper isn't much more than what you posted. How about doing a sample calculation? If you can. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pcj844$86b$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457506 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes: >On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in >> the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >The paper isn't much more than what you posted. >How about doing a sample calculation? >If you can. He can't. He's still struggling with a third grade math problem. Using his "theory" (or any theory) to do any calculations is far beyond his abilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 20:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcbb822d-696c-4158-af32-97e7118d7f98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457470 |
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? > This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows: > > Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other. > > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows: > > 1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > > 2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction. > > 3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force. > > 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf "The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force." A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary motions, as Newton showed long ago. An extra tangential force either pushes moons or planets farther away in spiral, or brings them inward similarly. Any significant force on the Moon would have pushed it away from the Earth long ago. Tidal forces already push it away a few cm a year, but these are understood as purely gravitational forces from an Earth which (due to a water bulge) is not quite a sphere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b03a61a3-d468-4106-a61d-c2d12c5f8f22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457510 |
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? > > This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows: > > > > Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other. > > > > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows: > > > > 1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > > > > 2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction. > > > > 3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force. > > > > 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > "The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force." > > > A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary motions, as Newton showed long ago. If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is orbiting the earth. >An extra tangential force either pushes moons or planets farther away in spiral, or brings them inward similarly. Any significant force on the Moon would have pushed it away from the Earth long ago. Tidal forces already push it away a few cm a year, but these are understood as purely gravitational forces from an Earth which (due to a water bulge) is not quite a sphere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e06f22f-9c2a-4f9d-aa95-2590e67298f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457571 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 17:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07acd33b-f0ad-4c44-9fb4-20af4cd48aa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457580 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are > stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? Good question. So, Ken, where did Newton go wrong? ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63f22ffb-6f5d-4666-a172-7aa3139fdc31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457580 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause of action at a distance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4712b8be-a794-4c00-9043-b9adb1b3a4ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457599 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? No answer? > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there > > are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an > > error in his proof? > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a348b6a4-0c5c-46ab-bc3a-0f0bc1171c14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457602 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > > No answer? > > > > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there > > > are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an > > > error in his proof? > > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. > > Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim? Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth and a repulsive force pointing away from the earth as the universe expands. The resulting force vector is pointing at the tangential direction and that’s why the moon is in a stable orbit around the earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d156cee-47df-4a4b-aff3-b741e135e053@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457607 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? STILL No answer? Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? > Newton didn’t provide any proof. Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim? No answer? > Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force Rubbish & irrelevant to the discussion. Stop diverting and remain on topic: YOU claimed that "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." We are asking you to prove this. IOW, from F ~ 1/r², show us that there are no stable solutions. We can show you that there are. But since YOU made the above claim, its up to you to support your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5867864-7ef7-44ea-a490-d6efbcadfcff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457607 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > > > > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > > > > No answer? > > > > > > > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there > > > > are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an > > > > error in his proof? > > > > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. > > > > Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > > > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim? > > Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force pointing > toward the center of the earth and a repulsive force pointing away > from the earth as the universe expands. The resulting force vector > is pointing at the tangential direction and that’s why the moon is > in a stable orbit around the earth. What nonsense. You seem to not know basic Newtonian mechanics. Quite simply you seem to be mixing momentum vectors and force vectors. (My best guess, since my mind reading hat is STILL in the shop.) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cfc98d7-c7c4-4252-84da-bc881f8e0faa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457599 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > > > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause > of action at a distance. Never read the Principia? You are losing what little credibility you have. You have already crossed into negative territory with many people. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61e9ae7a-b074-49cd-b52f-591406415302@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457668 |
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > > > > > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? > > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause > > of action at a distance. > > Never read the Principe? So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so. > > You are losing what little credibility you have. > You have already crossed into negative territory > with many people. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bd24742-e4ee-48a2-a9b6-592fbb252582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457697 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? STILL No answer? Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? > Newton didn’t provide any proof. Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim? No answer? > Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force Rubbish & irrelevant to the discussion. Stop diverting and remain on topic: YOU claimed that "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." We are asking you to prove this. IOW, from F ~ 1/r², show us that there are no stable solutions. We can show you that there are. But since YOU made the above claim, its up to you to support your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a11747ee-297b-4dd7-993b-e13e24441ae3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457699 |
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:48:54 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? > STILL No answer? Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth. The Model Mechanics explanation is correct: 1. An attractive EM force between the moon and the earth derived from that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands. 2. The moon and the earth are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are moving in the same direction. 3. The above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there > are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an > error in his proof? > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. > > Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > > > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim? > > No answer? > > > Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force > > Rubbish & irrelevant to the discussion. > Stop diverting and remain on topic: YOU claimed that > > "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > We are asking you to prove this. IOW, from F ~ 1/r², show us that there are no stable solutions. We can show you that there are. But since YOU made the above claim, its up to you to support your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <216c2329-b6d7-4119-8e27-b2a1bd2853b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457744 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. A lie. >with only attractive force and without proper high enough > orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth. That is NOT what you said above. So do you admit now that your first sentence above is wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pcv5ho$1hac$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457697 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. >>>> >>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? >>>> >>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable >>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? >>> >>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause >>> of action at a distance. >> >> Never read the Principe? > > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity > and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so. That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible, but Newton showed otherwise. > >> >> You are losing what little credibility you have. >> You have already crossed into negative territory >> with many people. >> >> Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web