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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa5ae798-a89b-48c4-a640-738739403b0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457704 |
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:53:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. 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. > > > > >> > >> 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]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <360d2905-ffb0-4797-9903-ccd8973e468b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457743 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > Moron, 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 you are retracting your claim and admit that you lied?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bbfcd47-a4d8-45cb-b382-1825724c69a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457745 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > > > Moron, 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 you are retracting your claim and admit that you lied? That exactly what I said....with just the attractive force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d805cd5-1403-4ef0-b11c-b6f13c3c4acb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457786 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to Irrelevant. Stay on topic. > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > That exactly what I said....with just the attractive force > the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Again, handwaving claim. But you still havent supported your claim; its just handwaving. Provide proof. With just F = (-1) 1/r², there are no stable orbits. Thats your claim. Prove it. Newton did provide a proof to the opposite that there are stable orbits. And his proof is sound, is ok and w/o any apparent errors. You however, refuce to provide a proof of your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17faa9db-9c3c-4dd7-9727-6102e782d95b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457789 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:02:22 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > > > > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to > > Irrelevant. Stay on topic. Moron it is completely relevant. > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > That exactly what I said....with just the attractive force > > the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > > Again, handwaving claim. But you still havent supported your claim; its just handwaving. Provide proof. > > With just F = (-1) 1/r², there are no stable orbits. Thats your claim. Prove it. Newton did provide a proof to the opposite that there are stable orbits. And his proof is sound, is ok and w/o any apparent errors. You however, refuce to provide a proof of your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 20:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1434242d-9cbe-40a5-84ac-bb38720cf395@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457786 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. Stay on topic: PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". > to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: > at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. > This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". There is "the existence of the sat", etc. Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. > a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. > It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 05:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df69b5a7-a4da-4079-b02d-e30324a8b281@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457809 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > > > > > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > > > > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... > > Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. > Stay on topic: > > PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". > > > > to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: > > at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. > > This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... > > No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". > There is "the existence of the sat", etc. > > Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > > means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. > That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. > > > a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. > > If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. > Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > > > It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > > Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f06d216-68b6-4482-b662-2553bb744e3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457823 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Idiot ken, when you use the word "orbit" you are implicitly referring to a body orbiting. Since its a body, its a mass (and thus has a speed). The word "orbit" means we are talking about a mass & speed. We need not to "admit" it, since mass&speed are already there, as posited by you. Or, purely mathematical, F = (-1)/r² = mr'' has stable solutions. Are you sure you know the meaning of the words you use?? > Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of > objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether > called the E-Matrix. Irrelevant to the discussion. You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions. The proof that it does is independent of your matrix and of your gender and of the color of the sky. We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions as you claimed. > So you see if there in only an attractive force between the > earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. I suspect that you do not know what those words & sentences mean. In the language of english & physics, your above statement is false. Your statement can be translated as: F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions. We want to to prove this. > > > It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > > > > Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there > > is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > > > It is not a false statement. Yes it is, because YOU require in your 'axiom' that there be ONLY an attractive force. But in your statement, you DONT ONLY have an attractive force (you have speeds too, and masses). Basically, your statement is saying: If you have only an attractive force AND not only an attractive force, then blah-blah. See, that sentence contains two contradictory axioms (premisses, declarations) . IOW, you are saying: Let the box have 3 pens and not 3 pens. That just doesnt make sense! > Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity Actually, no it doesnt. (-1)/r² = r'' has no "v" in there. Only the variable "r". Agree?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 07:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24963573-e193-42e8-98e8-c9ed341f25d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457825 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. > > Idiot ken, when you use the word "orbit" you are implicitly referring to a body orbiting. Since its a body, its a mass (and thus has a speed). The word "orbit" means we are talking about a mass & speed. We need not to "admit" it, since mass&speed are already there, as posited by you. > > Or, purely mathematical, F = (-1)/r² = mr'' has stable solutions. > > > Are you sure you know the meaning of the words you use?? > > > Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of > > objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether > > called the E-Matrix. > > Irrelevant to the discussion. > > You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions. > The proof that it does is independent of your matrix and of your gender and of the color of the sky. We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions as you claimed. I have no time for idiot like you.....David go suck egg. > > > So you see if there in only an attractive force between the > > earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > > I suspect that you do not know what those words & sentences mean. In the language of english & physics, your above statement is false. Your statement can be translated as: F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions. We want to to prove this. > > > > > > > It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > > > > > > Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there > > > is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > > > > > > It is not a false statement. > > Yes it is, because YOU require in your 'axiom' that there be ONLY > an attractive force. But in your statement, you DONT ONLY have an attractive force (you have speeds too, and masses). Basically, your statement is saying: > > If you have only an attractive force AND not only an attractive force, then blah-blah. > > See, that sentence contains two contradictory axioms (premisses, declarations) . IOW, you are saying: Let the box have 3 pens and not 3 pens. > That just doesnt make sense! > > > > Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity > > Actually, no it doesnt. (-1)/r² = r'' has no "v" in there. Only the variable "r". Agree?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <271c81a1-8e54-4604-9bac-64e4fb4165b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457828 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:20:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions. > > We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no > > stable solutions as you claimed. > > I have no time for idiot like you.....David go suck egg. So once more idiot ken cowards away. So you are aware that you made a false claim, that you lied and that you are too much of a coward to admit it. Google kept a record. > > If you have only an attractive force AND not only an attractive > > force, then blah-blah. > > > > See, that sentence contains two contradictory axioms No comment? So you agree that your sentence is self contradictory? > > Actually, no it doesnt. (-1)/r² = r'' has no "v" in there. > > Only the variable "r". Agree? No answer? I asked you if the letter "r" and "v" are the same letters, and you say yes. That shows how really stupid you are. No wonder you cant even figure out how to talk into a microphone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd7e87$q0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457823 |
On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. >>>> >>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. >>> >>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... >> >> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. >> Stay on topic: >> >> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". >> >> >>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: >>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. >>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... >> >> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". >> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. >> >> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." >> >> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. >> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. >> >>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. >> >> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. >> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. > > So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >> >>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. >> >> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > > > It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. > Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in this thread: "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." Why didn't you prove your claim? BTW the sentence "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." is self-contradictory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 14:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4b0f06c-42f0-45f8-adf1-0cfc09bcece8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457832 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > >>> > >>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... > >> > >> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. > >> Stay on topic: > >> > >> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". > >> > >> > >>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: > >>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. > >>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... > >> > >> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". > >> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. > >> > >> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > >> > >> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. > >> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. > >> > >>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. > >> > >> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. > >> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. > > > > So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > > > >> > >>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > >> > >> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > > > > > > It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. > > > Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and > repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were > asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in > this thread: > > "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." > > Why didn’t you prove your claim? Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? > > BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. Explain why this is contradictory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd7ugk$uf8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457835 |
On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... >>>> >>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. >>>> Stay on topic: >>>> >>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". >>>> >>>> >>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: >>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. >>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... >>>> >>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". >>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. >>>> >>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." >>>> >>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. >>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. >>>> >>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>> >>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. >>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. >>> >>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>> >>>> >>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. >>>> >>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. >>> >>> >>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. >>> >> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and >> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were >> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in >> this thread: >> >> "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." >> >> Why didn’t you prove your claim? > > Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? > > >> >> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. > > > Explain why this is contradictory? You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to the attractive force. Which is it? I assumed it was a typo or thinko, like when you used the word "sun" instead of "earth" in this earlier quote of yours: > "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. You know what the meaning of the word "assume" is...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08173922-e649-49d9-9ec1-6057b51bf633@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457836 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > > Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? > > That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. > That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? Thats because idiot ken is an idiot. he is a fraud & a liar. He doenst understand the words he reads & uses, he cant to basic math and he is a stupid chink who cant even figure out how to turn on a microphone. He also watches japscat & gay videos and brags about it here (he hasn't lately though...). He is a very deranged person. > > Explain why this is contradictory? > > You don't see it? It's No he doesnt. he's an idiot. > You know what the meaning of the word "assume" is... No he doesnt. He is an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pd82cv$snm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457836 |
Volney <volney@volney.invalid> writes: >>> BTW the sentence "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." >> >> >> Explain why this is contradictory? >You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force >is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to >the attractive force. Which is it? No he doesn't see it. He doesn't understand vectors. He doesn't understand fourth grade math like how to evaluate the expression (-6)/(-2). He doesn't understand that he doesn't understand those things. How do you expect him to understand vectors with less than fourth grade math ability?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4f2d46f-9fbc-4ea6-942e-5e6f21ae2733@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457836 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... > >>>> > >>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. > >>>> Stay on topic: > >>>> > >>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: > >>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. > >>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... > >>>> > >>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". > >>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. > >>>> > >>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > >>>> > >>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. > >>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. > >>>> > >>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>> > >>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. > >>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. > >>> > >>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > >>> > >>> > >>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>> > >> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and > >> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were > >> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in > >> this thread: > >> > >> "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." > >> > >> Why didn’t you prove your claim? > > > > Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? > > That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. > That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? Idiot, the prove of an equation is to do experiments to see of the predictions of the equation agree with observations. > >> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. > > > > > > Explain why this is contradictory? > > You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force > is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to > the attractive force. Which is it? Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are: 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth. 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces. > > I assumed it was a typo or thinko, like when you used the word "sun" > instead of "earth" in this earlier quote of yours: > "If there is only > attractive force then the system is not stable.....the moon will crash > into the sun eventually. > > You know what the meaning of the word "assume" is...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 10:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd9j0u$o3u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457844 |
On 5/13/2018 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. >>>>>> Stay on topic: >>>>>> >>>>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: >>>>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. >>>>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... >>>>>> >>>>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". >>>>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." >>>>>> >>>>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. >>>>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. >>>>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. >>>>> >>>>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>> >>>> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and >>>> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were >>>> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in >>>> this thread: >>>> >>>> "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." >>>> >>>> Why didn’t you prove your claim? >>> >>> Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? >> >> That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. >> That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? > > Idiot, the prove of an equation is to do experiments to see of the predictions of the equation agree with observations. So once again, why didn't you provide proof of your claim? As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post your proof here without launching satellites or whatever. As to doing experiments, the universe has been "performing" an experiment for about 4.5 billion years or so. So far, the moon hasn't crashed into the earth and the earth hasn't plunged into the sun yet. But who knows what will happen tomorrow, right? > > >>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. >>> >>> >>> Explain why this is contradictory? >> >> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force >> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to >> the attractive force. Which is it? > > Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are: > 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth. > 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces. I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's contradictory. Can a car drive due north and drive due east at the same time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a1d1be8-8025-4ddb-aaaa-e9a842148ce7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457847 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 10:44:48 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/13/2018 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. > >>>>>> Stay on topic: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: > >>>>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. > >>>>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". > >>>>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. > >>>>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. > >>>>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>> > >>>> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and > >>>> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were > >>>> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in > >>>> this thread: > >>>> > >>>> "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." > >>>> > >>>> Why didn’t you prove your claim? > >>> > >>> Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? > >> > >> That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. > >> That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? > > > > Idiot, the prove of an equation is to do experiments to see of the predictions of the equation agree with observations. > > So once again, why didn’t you provide proof of yoaintain ur claim? > As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post > your proof here without launching satellites or whatever. Moron, my claim is that the moon cannot maintain a stable orbit around the earth if there is only an attractive force between them. The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because its high velocity. Newton’s gravity equation and DTG’s equation included both effects and that’s why they give correct predictions for the orbit of the moon. > > As to doing experiments, the universe has been "performing" an > experiment for about 4.5 billion years or so. So far, the moon hasn't > crashed into the earth and the earth hasn't plunged into the sun yet. > But who knows what will happen tomorrow, right? Moron, the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon (due to they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix) in combination with the repulsive effect between them caused by the confinement of them to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. The combination of these opposing attractive force/repulsive effect enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit. > > > >>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. > >>> > >>> > >>> Explain why this is contradictory? > >> > >> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force > >> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to > >> the attractive force. Which is it? > > > > Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are: > > 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth. > > 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > > 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces. > > I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force > could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a > right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's > contradictory. Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing effects. That’s why the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces. > Can a car drive due north and drive due east at the same time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 13:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd9sf6$nv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #457852 |
On 5/13/2018 11:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 10:44:48 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. >>>>>>>> Stay on topic: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: >>>>>>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. >>>>>>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". >>>>>>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. >>>>>>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. >>>>>>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and >>>>>> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were >>>>>> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in >>>>>> this thread: >>>>>> >>>>>> "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." >>>>>> >>>>>> Why didn’t you prove your claim? >>>>> >>>>> Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? >>>> >>>> That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. >>>> That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? >>> >>> Idiot, the prove of an equation is to do experiments to see of the predictions of the equation agree with observations. >> >> So once again, why didn’t you provide proof of yoaintain ur claim? >> As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post >> your proof here without launching satellites or whatever. > > Moron, my claim is that the moon cannot maintain a stable orbit around the earth if there is only an attractive force between them. I didn't ask what your claim was. You have made your claim several times in this thread. I was asking why you didn't try to prove your claim that a repulsive force was necessary or that an attractive only force was unstable. Can you prove your claim or not? Please answer yes or no. >>>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Explain why this is contradictory? >>>> >>>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force >>>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to >>>> the attractive force. Which is it? >>> >>> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are: >>> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth. >>> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces. >> >> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force >> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a >> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's >> contradictory. > > Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing effects. That’s why the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces. Again you are answering a question I didn't ask. Once again, how can a force be both repulsive (opposite of the attractive force) and at right angles to the attractive force. Can you please answer that question?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d0e3be5-59ea-44c2-ac4b-a45866f06d82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457857 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 1:26:00 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/13/2018 11:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 10:44:48 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/13/2018 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic. > >>>>>>>> Stay on topic: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: > >>>>>>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. > >>>>>>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat". > >>>>>>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits. > >>>>>>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits. > >>>>>>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and > >>>>>> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were > >>>>>> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in > >>>>>> this thread: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "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." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why didn’t you prove your claim? > >>>>> > >>>>> Why didn’t provide prove of his equation? > >>>> > >>>> That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. > >>>> That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why? > >>> > >>> Idiot, the prove of an equation is to do experiments to see of the predictions of the equation agree with observations. > >> > >> So once again, why didn’t you provide proof of yoaintain ur claim? > >> As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post > >> your proof here without launching satellites or whatever. > > > > Moron, my claim is that the moon cannot maintain a stable orbit around the earth if there is only an attractive force between them. > > I didn't ask what your claim was. You have made your claim several times > in this thread. I was asking why you didn't try to prove your claim that > a repulsive force was necessary or that an attractive only force was > unstable. Can you prove your claim or not? Please answer yes or no. 1. Two charged balls, one positive and one negative they will attract to each other until they are in contact with each other....not orbiting each other as you seem to claim. 2. Now if one of the ball is fixed and the other is accelerated to a suitable velocity it will follow a n orbiting motion. > > >>>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Explain why this is contradictory? > >>>> > >>>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force > >>>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to > >>>> the attractive force. Which is it? > >>> > >>> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are: > >>> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth. > >>> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces. > >> > >> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force > >> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a > >> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's > >> contradictory. > > > > Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing effects. That’s why the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces. > > Again you are answering a question I didn't ask. Once again, how can a > force be both repulsive (opposite of the attractive force) and at right > angles to the attractive force. Can you please answer that question? Sigh....gravity is an attractive EM force less the repulsive effect that the gravitating objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That’s why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web