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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccf70bf2-2414-4f24-bd3a-718dca83b2ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458545 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:22:39 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > Wrong. First, centrifugal force is a fictional force. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. From the dictionary: an apparent force. So you see, cf is a *fictitious* / *apparent* force as per the definition specifies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdd165$72u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457918 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a >>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability. >>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with >>>> the only force being attractive. >>> >>> We are talking about my concept of gravity: >> >> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton >> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are >> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. > > What I claimed: > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable. You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect statement. You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. > > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract > each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. > No orbiting motion between them is observed. That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. > If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed > maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel: > 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion. > 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a > tangential motion is applied to the ball. > 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease > or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. That is incorrect. > So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument. It is still not a force. > >> >> People won’t talk with you about your concept of gravity because nobody >> cares about it. Nobody cares about it because you are in competent in basic >> physics and simple math. > > I don’t care what you fanatic SRians belief. You must mean “physicists”. There is no special class of physicists called SRians. There are a number of non-physicists who are anti-SRians, but who cares what non-physicists think about anything in physics? > Keep your head in the sand...that’s why for over 100 years you SR > physicists still failed to come up with a viable theory of gravity. General relativity is very viable. I have no idea why you think it’s not. > >> >> If all you talked about were your own concepts, you would get only short, >> dismissive replies or no replies at all — as you have noticed. When you >> talk about classical physics or relativity or quantum mechanics, that’s >> when you make one mistake upon another, and people talk to you about that. >> This is when you realize you are cornered, out of your depth, and you try >> to shift the conversation to your ideas, which nobody cares about. >> >>> 1. The attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. >>> 2. The repulsive effect between the earth and the moon because they are >>> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the >>> universe expands. This repulsive effect replaces the repulsive effect of >>> the of the tangential motion. >>> 3. The combination of the above two is gravity. Gravity is so weak >>> compare to the EM force alone because the repulsive effect cancelled out >>> some of the attractive EM force. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Stop squirming, it’s unattractive. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27df685d-35c6-4ee0-8911-d77253b15b08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457927 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a > >>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability. > >>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with > >>>> the only force being attractive. > >>> > >>> We are talking about my concept of gravity: > >> > >> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton > >> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are > >> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. > > > > What I claimed: > > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable. > > You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also > needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect > statement. I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect is also needed to maintain a stable orbit. That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit. >You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without > retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being > required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion. > > > > > > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract > > each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. > > No orbiting motion between them is observed. > > That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects > attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are > called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book. > > > If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed > > maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel: > > 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion. > > 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a > > tangential motion is applied to the ball. > > 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease > > or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. > > That is incorrect. You are full of shit. > > > So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument. > > It is still not a force. > Tangential motion requires an applied force and that applied force must be continuous to maintain a stable orbit.....the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix can be considered as continuous repulsive effect between the earth and the moon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdf5jt$1qf7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457974 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a >>>>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability. >>>>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with >>>>>> the only force being attractive. >>>>> >>>>> We are talking about my concept of gravity: >>>> >>>> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton >>>> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are >>>> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. >>> >>> What I claimed: >>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable. >> >> You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also >> needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect >> statement. > > I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect is > also needed to maintain a stable orbit. You said repulsive force. Look it up. Secondly, anything tangential is NOT repulsive. > That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from > that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit. > >> You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without >> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being >> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. > > Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion > because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination > with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion. >> >> >>> >>> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract >>> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. >>> No orbiting motion between them is observed. >> >> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects >> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. S The two objects are >> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. > > I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not > going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book. No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your incorrect claims about Newtonian physics. > >> >>> If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed >>> maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel: >>> 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion. >>> 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a >>> tangential motion is applied to the ball. >>> 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease >>> or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. >> >> That is incorrect. > > You are full of shit. > >> >>> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument. >> >> It is still not a force. >> > > Tangential motion requires an applied force That is incorrect. > and that applied force must be continuous to maintain a stable orbit. That is also incorrect. > ....the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > of the E-Matrix can be considered as continuous repulsive effect between > the earth and the moon. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a9fb345-c24e-4e74-b487-3d5e05160646@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457984 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a > >>>>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability. > >>>>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with > >>>>>> the only force being attractive. > >>>>> > >>>>> We are talking about my concept of gravity: > >>>> > >>>> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton > >>>> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are > >>>> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. > >>> > >>> What I claimed: > >>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable. > >> > >> You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also > >> needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect > >> statement. > > > > I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect is > > also needed to maintain a stable orbit. > > You said repulsive force. Look it up. > Secondly, anything tangential is NOT repulsive. I said repulsive effect and I am tired of your bull shit. In any case the attractive EM force is continuous and therefore it needs a continuous repulsive effect for the moon to maintain a stable orbit. The DTG description of gravity fits this perfectly and that’s why DTG is a superior theory. > > > That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from > > that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > > structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit. > > > >> You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without > >> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being > >> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. > > > > Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion > > because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination > > with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract > >>> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. > >>> No orbiting motion between them is observed. > >> > >> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects > >> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. S The two objects are > >> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. > > > > I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not > > going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book. > > No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your > incorrect claims about Newtonian physics. Then go fuck yourself. You are nothing but an uninformed woodworker. > > > > > >> > >>> If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed > >>> maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel: > >>> 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion. > >>> 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a > >>> tangential motion is applied to the ball. > >>> 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease > >>> or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. > >> > >> That is incorrect. > > > > You are full of shit. > > > >> > >>> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument. > >> > >> It is still not a force. > >> > > > > Tangential motion requires an applied force > > That is incorrect. > > > and that applied force must be continuous to maintain a stable orbit. > > That is also incorrect. > > > ....the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > > of the E-Matrix can be considered as continuous repulsive effect between > > the earth and the moon. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88f87987-8f07-4924-80ce-e36b47f748e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458008 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 4:38:38 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > I said repulsive effect yes u did. And that means a repulsive force. > In any case the attractive EM force is continuous Doesn't matter what name you give the force. You are posting an attractive force, ok. > and therefore it needs a continuous repulsive effect By "repulsive effect" you mean a repulsive force. And therefore your statement is wrong because it doesnt need a repulsive force. An attractive force, w/o any other forces, can generate stable orbits; there are stable solutions. Newton showed it in a few lines of simple math. We can prove it in one line of simple math. Can u prove that its doesnt have stable orbits as you claim? > Then go fuck yourself. That's your scientific argument? > You are nothing but an uninformed woodworker. You Are wrong idiot ken. he is way smarter than you in math & physics, even if he's a woodworker. Dont be a chink coward like you are idiot ken and admit to your limitations. Admitting u have a problem is the first step in getting better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdfinb$k7n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458008 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a >>>>>>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability. >>>>>>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with >>>>>>>> the only force being attractive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are talking about my concept of gravity: >>>>>> >>>>>> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton >>>>>> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are >>>>>> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> What I claimed: >>>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable. >>>> >>>> You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also >>>> needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect >>>> statement. >>> >>> I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect is >>> also needed to maintain a stable orbit. >> >> You said repulsive force. Look it up. >> Secondly, anything tangential is NOT repulsive. > > I said repulsive effect and I am tired of your bull shit. In any case the > attractive EM force is continuous and therefore it needs a continuous > repulsive effect for the moon to maintain a stable orbit. And that is incorrect, as Newton proved. There is no “repulsive effect” required. A stable orbit automatically has a net acceleration toward the center. As Newton showed, this net acceleration toward the center does NOT entail diminution of distance. > The DTG description of gravity fits this perfectly and that’s why DTG is a superior theory. > >> >>> That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from >>> that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent >>> structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit. >>> >>>> You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without >>>> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being >>>> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. >>> >>> Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion >>> because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination >>> with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract >>>>> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. >>>>> No orbiting motion between them is observed. >>>> >>>> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects >>>> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. S The two objects are >>>> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. >>> >>> I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not >>> going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book. >> >> No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your >> incorrect claims about Newtonian physics. > > Then go fuck yourself. You are nothing but an uninformed woodworker. And you are a chemical engineer who is completely uneducated and unread in physics. And you make the mistake of countless stupid comments about Newtonian physics which you know nothing about. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed >>>>> maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel: >>>>> 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion. >>>>> 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a >>>>> tangential motion is applied to the ball. >>>>> 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease >>>>> or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. >>>> >>>> That is incorrect. >>> >>> You are full of shit. >>> >>>> >>>>> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument. >>>> >>>> It is still not a force. >>>> >>> >>> Tangential motion requires an applied force >> >> That is incorrect. >> >>> and that applied force must be continuous to maintain a stable orbit. >> >> That is also incorrect. >> >>> ....the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure >>> of the E-Matrix can be considered as continuous repulsive effect between >>> the earth and the moon. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdfikr$16b$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #457974 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>>> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital >> >>>>> velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth. >> >>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a >> >>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability. >> >>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with >> >>>> the only force being attractive. >> >>> We are talking about my concept of gravity: >> >> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton >> >> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are >> >> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. >> > What I claimed: >> > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable. >> You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also >> needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect >> statement. >I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect Repulsive "effect"? You said repulsive force. You are trying to weasel out of your earlier claim. is also needed to maintain a stable orbit. That is a correct statement. No, it is not. Newton proved orbits were stable with only a repulsive force. > Without the repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are >confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix the moon will >not be able to keep a stable orbit. Babbling nonsense which is not part of Newton's gravity. >>You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without >> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being >> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. >Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion >because that's why you understand. The repulsive effect in >combination with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion. It is not correct. "Repulsive effect" is just nonsense words you invented because you were caught being wrong. >> > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract >> > each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. >> > No orbiting motion between them is observed. >> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects >> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are >> called proton and electron. I=E2=80=99m sure you=E2=80=99ve heard of them. >I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not going >to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book. >> > So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument. >> It is still not a force. >Tangential motion requires an applied force and that applied force must be >continuous to maintain a stable orbit..... No, it doesn't. A situation where two masses are heading in straight lines toward each other, but offset slightly, does not involve any forces other than the attractive force of gravity. The objects may form a stable orbit since they "miss" each other. Once an orbit is formed, there are NO forces involved other than the attractive force of gravity. Newton proved that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <840998bb-6031-45d6-9c54-4ee35fb6f88e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457918 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 4:51:34 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > What I claimed: > If there is only attractive force between two objects the > system is not stable. Yes thats what you keep claiming, yet you refuse to prove your claim. Your claim, stated mathematically (or physically) is that -r^/r² = r'' has no stable solutions (where r^ = unit vector, '' second derivative,...). Newton proved that that eqs DOES have stable solutions. Can you prove your claim? > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge Irrelevant. There are no "charge" in your statement. Stay on topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e2abc60-fd01-4f09-b713-38b2ec8c61eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457697 |
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto 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: [] > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause > > > of action at a distance. > > > > Never read the Principe? First why did you change my spelling? I originally wrote "Never read the Principia?" (Maybe you trust spell check too much?) > > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism > for gravity and the observed action at a distance? > I don’t think so. You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8780ee9-093a-46ca-b06f-5e42978ff806@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457782 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto 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: > [] > > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause > > > > of action at a distance. > > > > > > Never read the Principe? > > First why did you change my spelling? I originally wrote > "Never read the Principia?" > (Maybe you trust spell check too much?) Sigh....The word “principe” was copied from your post on May 8. I see that you went back and changed to the correct spelling to “Principia” > > > > > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism > > for gravity and the observed action at a distance? > > I don’t think so. > > You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." > The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results > that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cdd33d2-b2b3-4fba-bc7e-f4eaef1d3228@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457788 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > > > You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." > > The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results > > that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. > > Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the > attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. > This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit. HOWEVER, you said this previously: On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: [] > > > > A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary > > motions, as Newton showed long ago. > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not > stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. > That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and > the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This > repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined > to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). > The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the > center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect > is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit > vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector > is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is > orbiting the earth. > So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector or tangential Force vector? Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause unstable orbits. Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdi1qj$kov$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458088 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > [] >>> >>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." >>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results >>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. >> >> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the >> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. >> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit. > > HOWEVER, you said this previously: > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: > [] >>> >>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary >>> motions, as Newton showed long ago. >> >> If there is only attractive force then the system is not >> stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. >> That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and >> the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This >> repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined >> to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). >> The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the >> center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect >> is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit >> vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector >> is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is >> orbiting the earth. >> > So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector > or tangential Force vector? > > Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both > pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a > radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets > very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause > unstable orbits. > > Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. > Ed > Ken can’t do math. What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center. If the orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the center. The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration toward the center makes no sense to him. So rather than learn why a stable orbit still involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian physics. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdi4r1$qea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458089 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> [] >>>> >>>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." >>>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results >>>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. >>> >>> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the >>> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. >>> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit. >> >> HOWEVER, you said this previously: >> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: >> [] >>>> >>>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary >>>> motions, as Newton showed long ago. >>> >>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not >>> stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. >>> That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and >>> the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This >>> repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined >>> to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). >>> The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the >>> center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect >>> is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit >>> vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector >>> is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is >>> orbiting the earth. >>> >> So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector >> or tangential Force vector? >> >> Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both >> pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a >> radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets >> very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause >> unstable orbits. >> >> Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. >> Ed >> > > Ken can’t do math. > > What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration > toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its > distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center. If the > orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the center. > The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration toward the > center makes no sense to him. So rather than learn why a stable orbit still > involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a > whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing > notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. > > Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian > physics. > This is related to his intuition about decreased acceleration being deceleration. This comes from his gut feel that the accelerator pedal in his car tells his acceleration and when he takes his Foyt off the accelerator he slows down. This is what we’re dealing with. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e1e0e04-904a-4948-be7b-f9b7600a4384@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458089 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > [] > >>> > >>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." > >>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results > >>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. > >> > >> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the > >> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. > >> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit. > > > > HOWEVER, you said this previously: > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: > > [] > >>> > >>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary > >>> motions, as Newton showed long ago. > >> > >> If there is only attractive force then the system is not > >> stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. > >> That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and > >> the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This > >> repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined > >> to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). > >> The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the > >> center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect > >> is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit > >> vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector > >> is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is > >> orbiting the earth. > >> > > So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector > > or tangential Force vector? > > > > Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both > > pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a > > radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets > > very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause > > unstable orbits. > > > > Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. > > Ed > > > > Ken can’t do math. > > What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration > toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its > distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center. You area lying sack of shit. I said if there is only attractive force then there is no tangential orbiting motion and the two objects will simply move toward each other until contact.....like a magnet attracts a steel ball. > If the > orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the center. The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration toward the center makes no sense to him. This is an outright lie....I said no such thing. I said that a stable orbit requires a centripetal force pulling the object toward the center and a centrifugal force that causes the object to orbit around the center. So rather than learn why a stable orbit still > involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a > whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing > notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. > > Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian > physics. Fucking liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdi8cj$10q0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458097 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> [] >>>>> >>>>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." >>>>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results >>>>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. >>>> >>>> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the >>>> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. >>>> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit. >>> >>> HOWEVER, you said this previously: >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: >>> [] >>>>> >>>>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary >>>>> motions, as Newton showed long ago. >>>> >>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not >>>> stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. >>>> That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and >>>> the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This >>>> repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined >>>> to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). >>>> The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the >>>> center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect >>>> is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit >>>> vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector >>>> is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is >>>> orbiting the earth. >>>> >>> So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector >>> or tangential Force vector? >>> >>> Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both >>> pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a >>> radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets >>> very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause >>> unstable orbits. >>> >>> Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. >>> Ed >>> >> >> Ken can’t do math. >> >> What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration >> toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its >> distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center. > > You area lying sack of shit. I said if there is only attractive force > then there is no tangential orbiting motion and the two objects will > simply move toward each other until contact.....like a magnet attracts a steel ball. > > >> If the >> orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the >> center. The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration >> toward the center makes no sense to him. > > This is an outright lie....I said no such thing. I said that a stable > orbit requires a centripetal force pulling the object toward the center > and a centrifugal force that causes the object to orbit around the center. Centrifugal means “away from center”. Anything centrifugal has zero tangential component and cannot cause “around” motion. Around is tangential. I believe Ed P has been trying to make this basic point with you as well. Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by Halliday and Resnick. > > So rather than learn why a stable orbit still >> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a >> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing >> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. >> >> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian >> physics. > > Fucking liar. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 05:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <551b8800-168e-4bac-aae9-d8353e93ed9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458099 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:38:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> [] > >>>>> > >>>>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof." > >>>>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results > >>>>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time. > >>>> > >>>> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the > >>>> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon. > >>>> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit. > >>> > >>> HOWEVER, you said this previously: > >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: > >>> [] > >>>>> > >>>>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary > >>>>> motions, as Newton showed long ago. > >>>> > >>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not > >>>> stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. > >>>> That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and > >>>> the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This > >>>> repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined > >>>> to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix). > >>>> The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the > >>>> center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect > >>>> is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit > >>>> vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector > >>>> is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is > >>>> orbiting the earth. > >>>> > >>> So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector > >>> or tangential Force vector? > >>> > >>> Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both > >>> pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a > >>> radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets > >>> very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause > >>> unstable orbits. > >>> > >>> Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. > >>> Ed > >>> > >> > >> Ken can’t do math. > >> > >> What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration > >> toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its > >> distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center. > > > > You area lying sack of shit. I said if there is only attractive force > > then there is no tangential orbiting motion and the two objects will > > simply move toward each other until contact.....like a magnet attracts a steel ball. > > > > > >> If the > >> orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the > >> center. The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration > >> toward the center makes no sense to him. > > > > This is an outright lie....I said no such thing. I said that a stable > > orbit requires a centripetal force pulling the object toward the center > > and a centrifugal force that causes the object to orbit around the center. > > Centrifugal means “away from center”. Anything centrifugal has zero > tangential component and cannot cause “around” motion. Around is > tangential. I believe Ed P has been trying to make this basic point with > you as well. Sigh.....here are the facts: 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as physicists assert. 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction. > > Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal > force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how > stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. > You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by > Halliday and Resnick. > > > > > So rather than learn why a stable orbit still > >> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a > >> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing > >> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. > >> > >> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian > >> physics. > > > > Fucking liar. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c838ef53-2d0b-4df6-9646-57543d8dfe56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458134 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Sigh.....here are the facts: > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim? Is Cp force a radial force? Does it have a tangential component? Can you give an example where there is cp force alone? > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one > get orbiting motion. What is a cf force? Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component? > That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as > physicists assert. Perhaps then yous are using different definitions? What is the definition of cf force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4aa5b6e9-e0b5-4d2a-8600-583b31479c5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458138 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Sigh.....here are the facts: > > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim? > Is Cp force a radial force? Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force. > Does it have a tangential component? > Can you give an example where there is cp force alone? That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force. > > > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one > > get orbiting motion. > > What is a cf force? > Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component? cf force in combination with cp force do have tangential component. > > > > That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as > > physicists assert. > > Perhaps then yous are using different definitions? > What is the definition of cf force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4d6d057-d7f6-4612-8c86-c389392a91f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458169 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:55:15 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim? > > Is Cp force a radial force? > > Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force. That is not what I asked. I asked is cp force a radial force. yes or no? *Then* you can detail your response. But as is, my question is a 'yes or no' question, so answer only with a yes or no. > > Does it have a tangential component? > > Can you give an example where there is cp force alone? > > That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force. So, what is the definition of cp and cf forces? I asked you this and you didn't answer. > > > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one > > > get orbiting motion. > > > > What is a cf force? No answer? > > Is it a radial force? Yes or no? > Does it have a tangential component? yes or no? > > Perhaps then yous are using different definitions? > > What is the definition of cf force? no answer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web