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 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 15:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tD_LC.83019$RI2.14589@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #458400 |
On 5/19/2018 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:15:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> 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: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry but those are not facts. Those are your assertions. They fly counter >>>>> to all of physics, even high school physics. You somehow have come to the >>>>> conclusion that if your intuition tells you something then it is a fact. >>>> >>>> Your assertions are wrong. Centripetal force do not exist without >>>> centrifugal force. IOW, they both exist simultaneously to maintain a stable orbit. >>> >>> Flat out wrong. Read your copy of Halliday and Resnick. Or, if you want to >>> be even funnier than you are now, tell me that Halliday and Resnick are >>> wrong and you don’t have to read basic physics to understand it. >> >> >> Your argument is based on the failed theory of SR and its failed definitions. > > Ken you are arguing with Newtonian physics from the 1600s, two centuries > prior to SR. > > Only a fool would not bother to learn anything about physics and then make > physics claims from just thinking about it. You’re a fool, Ken, and > everyone knows that. All bluster, no meat You are an idiot, Odd. You have totally forgotten about the imperial thinking of Archimedes Plutonium who discovered Triangular CO2 as the cause of climate change without ever entering a lab or making a measurement. This is Nobel level thinking, I'm sure. Maybe two!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a396590-3f09-4cb1-be59-3e37794f8544@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458097 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto 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. Well, that's wrong. All that is required is one attractive (centripetal) force, and an initial amount of tangential motion (momentum or energy) as a starting condition. That so the two objects miss each other as one comes in. If they do, and they are in vacuum, they go around for billions of years, only decaying when the energy in the system is sapped by them running into photons or radiation gravity waves. And of course the fact that nothing is ever a perfect vacuum. > 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. True enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70132873-c0d7-42fb-8453-8b12fcc4e605@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458102 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:08:58 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote: > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto 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. > > Well, that's wrong. All that is required is one attractive (centripetal) force, and an initial amount of tangential motion (momentum or energy) as a starting condition. That so the two objects miss each other as one comes in. If they do, and they are in vacuum, they go around for billions of years, only decaying when the energy in the system is sapped by them running into photons or radiation gravity waves. And of >course the fact that nothing is ever a perfect vacuum. You are wrong. Here are the facts 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one gets 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. > > > > 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. > > > True enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c87a187b-af93-4395-b594-3e00a0569a9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458097 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto 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. So you never heard of Newton's first law of motion? > > > > 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. NO, as I quoted you above, you said a Force tangent to the orbit. > > > 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. Ken, you are the one clearly confused by your own comments. Sorry but I am too polite to call you a liar. 8^P Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1dd142cb-9e99-4cc9-9726-0fe2bedfaf12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458104 |
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto 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. > > So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion? You don’t know the facts so you are babbling. Here are the facts 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one gets 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > NO, as I quoted you above, you said a Force tangent to the orbit. > > > > > 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. > > Ken, you are the one clearly confused by your own comments. > Sorry but I am too polite to call you a liar. 8^P > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7441b90c-07e7-4cc4-98f6-920777bd7f99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458139 |
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > 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. > > > > So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion? > > You don’t know the facts so you are babbling. I only respond to acknowledge that you insulting me is not a valid argument. > Here are the facts > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. Bzzzt, wrong. Newton proved orbital motion requires only the centripetal force. > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force > one gets orbiting motion. centrifugal force in a fictitious force. Newton shows that orbital motion follows the change in velocity (a vector) due to the gravitational (centripetal) force, resulting in Keplerian orbital path. > That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. > That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as > physicists assert. Physicists do not merely assert it. Using Newton's equations physicists predict orbital motions successfully. That is the real test of Newton's theory. > 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. This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone, but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers. > > > > > > 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. > > > > NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit. And here is the key point: it is not directed in a tangent to the motion. Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center. So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but it points the wrong way!!!!!! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdnhrh$1j76$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458346 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>> 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. >>> >>> So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion? >> >> You don’t know the facts so you are babbling. > > I only respond to acknowledge that you insulting me is > not a valid argument. > >> Here are the facts >> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > Bzzzt, wrong. > Newton proved orbital motion requires only the > centripetal force. > > >> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force >> one gets orbiting motion. > > centrifugal force in a fictitious force. Newton shows that > orbital motion follows the change in velocity (a vector) > due to the gravitational (centripetal) force, resulting in > Keplerian orbital path. > >> That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. >> That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as >> physicists assert. > > Physicists do not merely assert it. > Using Newton's equations physicists predict orbital motions > successfully. That is the real test of Newton's theory. > >> 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. > > This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the > same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia > of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone, > but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers. To augment your answer, a beginning student will say, what breaks the string if not a centrifugal force pulling the object outward? Ken has never learned the answer. The answer is that the string is the agent that provides the centripetal force on the object, producing the centripetal acceleration that is required for circular motion. Since that acceleration is proportional to v^2, then the faster the object goes, the more force the string has to provide to produce the increased centripetal acceleration. The string has a limit to how much force it can provide before it breaks. When it breaks, there is no longer ANY force on the object (certainly not any centrifugal force) which is why it continues in uniform straight line motion from that point. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit. > > And here is the key point: > it is not directed in a tangent to the motion. > Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center. > > So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing > that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but > it points the wrong way!!!!!! > > Ed > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06936ed0-0a33-4b0c-8b6c-0f92fa5b5ee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458349 |
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:50:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion? > >> > >> You don’t know the facts so you are babbling. > > > > I only respond to acknowledge that you insulting me is > > not a valid argument. > > > >> Here are the facts > >> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > > > Bzzzt, wrong. > > Newton proved orbital motion requires only the > > centripetal force. > > > > > >> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force > >> one gets orbiting motion. > > > > centrifugal force in a fictitious force. Newton shows that > > orbital motion follows the change in velocity (a vector) > > due to the gravitational (centripetal) force, resulting in > > Keplerian orbital path. > > > >> That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. > >> That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as > >> physicists assert. > > > > Physicists do not merely assert it. > > Using Newton's equations physicists predict orbital motions > > successfully. That is the real test of Newton's theory. > > > >> 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. > > > > This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the > > same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia > > of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone, > > but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers. > > To augment your answer, a beginning student will say, what breaks the > string if not a centrifugal force pulling the object outward? Ken has never > learned the answer. The answer is that the string is the agent that > provides the centripetal force on the object, producing the centripetal > acceleration that is required for circular motion. No flat out wrong. The force applied by the string gives rise to the CP and CF forces. Notice that the fingers that applied the force must be in a circular motion in order to make the stone go orbiting motion....this gives the tangential component of the CF force. Gee you guys are stupid...can’t thin for yourself. >Since that acceleration > is proportional to v^2, then the faster the object goes, the more force the > string has to provide to produce the increased centripetal acceleration. > The string has a limit to how much force it can provide before it breaks. > When it breaks, there is no longer ANY force on the object (certainly not > any centrifugal force) which is why it continues in uniform straight line > motion from that point. > > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit. > > > > And here is the key point: > > it is not directed in a tangent to the motion. > > Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center. > > > > So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing > > that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but > > it points the wrong way!!!!!! > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e9ef39d-e3e9-4a26-9020-5f83206c86ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458387 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 8:53:36 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > The force applied by the string gives rise to the CP and CF forces. Can u cite the definition of CF force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <546a7e1f-2be1-498e-8507-79d74543e584@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458346 |
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:37:03 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion? > > > > You don’t know the facts so you are babbling. > > I only respond to acknowledge that you insulting me is > not a valid argument. > > > Here are the facts > > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > Bzzzt, wrong. > Newton proved orbital motion requires only the > centripetal force. Bzzt, wrong. Newton’s orbiting motion requires a combination of CP and CF forces. > > > > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force > > one gets orbiting motion. > > centrifugal force in a fictitious force. Newton shows that > orbital motion follows the change in velocity (a vector) > due to the gravitational (centripetal) force, resulting in > Keplerian orbital path. CF force is not fictitious.....the radial force is a combination of the CP and CF forces. > > > That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. > > That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as > > physicists assert. > > Physicists do not merely assert it. > Using Newton's equations physicists predict orbital motions > successfully. That is the real test of Newton’s theory. They failed to realize that the resulting radial acceleration is a combination of the CP and CF forces. > > > 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. > > This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the > same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia > of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone, > but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers. Sigh.....you have to apply a force to make the stone go faster. When the applied force is greater than the breaking point of the string the string will break and the stone go of in a tangential direction. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit. > > And here is the key point: > it is not directed in a tangent to the motion. > Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center. If the CF force is strictly outward away from the center then what cause the stone to orbit around the center? The answer: The CF force has tangential component. > > So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing > that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but > it points the wrong way!!!!!! > No it doesn’t. If CP and CF forces are strictly inward and outward then the resulting radial force is the sum of the forces and no orbiting motion. Gee you guys are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6944eab8-9010-4efc-970f-cf51f694ab22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458384 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 8:43:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Newton’s orbiting motion requires a combination of CP and CF forces. Idiot ken, do you know what 'centrifugal force' (CF) is ? Why do you refuse to cite a definition of it? > CF force is not fictitious..... Can u cite the definition of CF force? > They failed to realize that the resulting radial acceleration > is a combination of the CP and CF forces. Can u cite the definition of CF force? > If the CF force is strictly outward away from the center then > what cause the stone to orbit around the center? Idiot ken, say a free body is traveling at constant speed in space. What force, what 'cause' is making it maintain its motion? > The answer: The CF force has tangential component. Can u cite the definition of CF force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58ff06f0-7f2e-446f-81b0-dc007fedda76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458384 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 8:43:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:37:03 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: trying to simplify the quote to get to just the essense of the problem. > > > Here are the facts > > > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > > > Bzzzt, wrong. > > Newton proved orbital motion requires only the > > centripetal force. > > Bzzt, wrong. > Newton’s orbiting motion requires a combination of CP and CF forces. > Stop right here. Show us. DO THE MATH, specifically the vector algebra. As I said before, I think you will find that you have the momentum vector mixed up with the force vector. If you think I'm wrong, don't say it. Prove it. Show us Newton's mistake. > > They failed to realize that the resulting radial > acceleration is a combination of the CP and CF forces. Prove it. > > > > This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the > > same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia > > of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone, > > but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers. > > Sigh.....you have to apply a force to make the stone go faster. > When the applied force is greater than the breaking point of > the string the string will break and the stone go of in a > tangential direction. No, that applied force is tangential to the orbit! Man you really do not understand vectors at all. If I am wrong, show the proof. (Calculations) > > And here is the key point: > > it is not directed in a tangent to the motion. > > Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center. > > If the CF force is strictly outward away from the center > then what cause the stone to orbit around the center? > The answer: The CF force has tangential component. NO. Momentum. You show your lack of understanding. Draw the forces you think exist. do the work. > > > > > So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing > > that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but > > it points the wrong way!!!!!! > > > > No it doesn’t. If CP and CF forces are strictly inward > and outward then the resulting radial force is the sum > of the forces and no orbiting motion. Gee you guys are stupid. You failed general science in 9th grade, didn't you? Right before you dropped out of school, right? -> -> F = dp/dt hopefully the vector (->) signs come above the right places. Force F is the time t rate of change of momentum p. You only need One force vector and one momentum vector. This is simple high school physics. Do the math, however you can. Look it up if you do not know how to do it. But do it before you reply with more nonsense. And BTW, this has nothing to do with Special Relativity. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <825977d6-9a11-4349-acf4-08d8bd163d59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459000 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:44:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 8:43:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:37:03 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > trying to simplify the quote to get to just the essense > of the problem. > > > > > Here are the facts > > > > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > > > > > Bzzzt, wrong. > > > Newton proved orbital motion requires only the > > > centripetal force. > > > > Bzzt, wrong. > > Newton’s orbiting motion requires a combination of CP and CF forces. > > > Stop right here. > > Show us. DO THE MATH, specifically the vector algebra. > As I said before, I think you will find that you have > the momentum vector mixed up with the force vector. > > If you think I'm wrong, don't say it. Prove it. > Show us Newton’s mistake. With gravity the CP force is greater than the CF force and thus the CP force is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. But the CF force still exists and the combination of these forces causes the moon to orbit the earth. This explanation does not give the cause of gravity....for example: what caused the continuous CP and CF forces acting on the moon? That’s why I invented the new theory of gravity DTG. DTG says that gravity is a composite force as follows:. 1. The earth and the moon are attracted to each other via an EM force caused by that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands since the Big Bang. 2. The earth and the moon expanding in the same direction creates a repulsive effect on each other. This is derived from the concept that the structure of the E-matrix is divergent and that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the above opposing forces and that’s why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force. 4. Read the link below for a detail description of the DTG: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity. > > > > > > They failed to realize that the resulting radial > > acceleration is a combination of the CP and CF forces. > > Prove it. > > > > > > > This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the > > > same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia > > > of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone, > > > but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers. > > > > Sigh.....you have to apply a force to make the stone go faster. > > When the applied force is greater than the breaking point of > > the string the string will break and the stone go of in a > > tangential direction. > > No, that applied force is tangential to the orbit! > Man you really do not understand vectors at all. > If I am wrong, show the proof. (Calculations) > > > > And here is the key point: > > > it is not directed in a tangent to the motion. > > > Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center. > > > > If the CF force is strictly outward away from the center > > then what cause the stone to orbit around the center? > > The answer: The CF force has tangential component. > > NO. Momentum. You show your lack of understanding. > Draw the forces you think exist. do the work. > > > > > > > > > So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing > > > that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but > > > it points the wrong way!!!!!! > > > > > > > No it doesn’t. If CP and CF forces are strictly inward > > and outward then the resulting radial force is the sum > > of the forces and no orbiting motion. Gee you guys are stupid. > > You failed general science in 9th grade, didn't you? > Right before you dropped out of school, right? > > -> -> > F = dp/dt > > hopefully the vector (->) signs come above the right places. > > Force F is the time t rate of change of momentum p. > You only need One force vector and one momentum vector. > This is simple high school physics. Do the math, however > you can. Look it up if you do not know how to do it. > But do it before you reply with more nonsense. > > And BTW, this has nothing to do with Special Relativity. > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdihrh$te7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #458097 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >> > So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector >> > or tangential Force vector? >> > >> > Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both >> > pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a >> > radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets >> > very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause >> > unstable orbits. >> > >> > Please, do the math. Your idea does not work. >> > Ed >> >> Ken can't do math. >> What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration >> toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its >> distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center. >You area lying sack of shit. I said if there is only attractive force then >there is no tangential orbiting motion and the two objects will simply move > toward each other until contact.....like a magnet attracts a steel ball. No, Stupid Ken. It is you who is lying. This is what you wrote early on: "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually. That's why we need the repulsive force between the moon and the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth." You explicitly stated we need a repulsive force. >Fucking liar. Named Ken Seto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 08:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4WRJC.15097$AQ.9973@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #457470 |
On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote: > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? Hi Ken, I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much better answers than any you've had so far............. Not that i can answer it myself eh! All i've got for you is another question: What happened to your "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....." I thought that was another very good thread of yours. Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with most of the threads i start myself eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bdd03d1-b133-4cd5-9f23-3fadf8d079b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457841 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote: > I thought that was another very good thread of yours. > Is it still on your news ? No, I have been removing some of his threads/posts. > It's disappeared from mine, Of course, since I have been removing some of his posts since they are too stupid and he doesnt deserve to be heard. > along with > most of the threads i start myself eh! Yes, I remove some of your posts too since you are only trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 16:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <INYJC.304824$gE6.244845@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #457845 |
On 13/05/2018 14:53, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
>
>> I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
>> Is it still on your news ?
>
> No, I have been removing some of his threads/posts.
>
>> It's disappeared from mine,
>
> Of course, since I have been removing some of his posts since they are too stupid and he doesnt deserve to be heard.
>
>> along with
>> most of the threads i start myself eh!
>
> Yes, I remove some of your posts too since you are only trolling.
You sure it's not because you made a right fool of yourself by
claiming things were on Google that anyone can check are not there?
On 10/05/2018 19:36, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 2:19:45 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 10/05/2018 16:23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>'
>>> There are two quite different meanings for the symbol 'c':
>>
>> No wonder i'm confused.
>
> That, you are...
>
>>> (1) the vacuum speed of light
>>> (2) the symmetry speed of geometry, including the Lorentz transform
>>
>> That's not a term i've heard before
>
> Thats because you are (still?) ignorant. You dont have enough
experience and you don not know how to use google.
Google still doesn't seem to know what "SYMMETRY SPEED OF GEOMETRY" is.
Maybe i doing it wrong eh!
ANYONE PLEASE HELP - POST ANY RELEVANT LINK from GOOGLE HERE:-
>> and even Google does not know what the
>> "symmetry speed of geometry"
>
> If you knew how to use google, you would find what it means. If you
were smart, you would figure out on your own what it means.
I must be very dumb eh!
>> And would i of been correct had i saidL
>> If the symmetry speed of geometry was infinite
>
> That would be a different geometry, a different model.
>
>> then the discrepancy between the clocks would be zero...."
but even a dummy like me can see that if the speed of the signal
connecting the clocks was infinite, the discrepancy between the clocks
would be zero eh!
> But actual clocks DO show a discrepancy , hence your proposed
> model (infinite SoL geometry) would not be an appropriate one.
>
>> And yet you can't show me one experiment were clocks differ
>> by so much as 1 micro second when reunited eh!
>
> There are zillions of such exps. Google is your friend; learn to use it!
I repeat:
"you can't show me one experiment were clocks differ
by so much as 1 micro second when reunited"
and if you Rotchm, OR INDEED ANYONE, can use google to prove this wrong,
then please post the relevant link here eh!
> Or, you can do the exp yourself. With modern atomic clocks (that you
can loan), do the exp on your own. Are u afraid of the results u would get?
I repeat:
"you can't show me one experiment were clocks differ
by so much as 1 micro second when reunited"
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 06:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df318739-3f70-4c74-ae78-c40145e90954@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457841 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote: > > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? > > Hi Ken, > I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much > better answers than any you've had so far............. > Not that i can answer it myself eh! What’s wrong with my answers? You can’t dismiss my answers by handwaving. > > All i've got for you is another question: > What happened to your > > "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....." > > I thought that was another very good thread of yours. > Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with > most of the threads i start myself eh! This thread is still on Google. Why don’t you gold starred the thread that you are interested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 16:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <82ZJC.186125$pC1.178305@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #457846 |
On 13/05/2018 14:57, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote: >>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? >> >> Hi Ken, >> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much >> better answers than any you've had so far............. >> Not that i can answer it myself eh! > > What’s wrong with my answers? Well i have already told you that i don't believe in absolute velocity Ken, but if you tell me how it can be measured i might change my mind. > You can’t dismiss my answers by handwaving. ' Didn't mean to offend you Ken. I didn't tackle the question myself because it's way outside my area of competence eh! >> All i've got for you is another question: >> What happened to your >> >> "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....." >> >> I thought that was another very good thread of yours. >> Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with >> most of the threads i start myself eh! > > This thread is still on Google. Why don’t you gold starred the thread that you are interested. Indeed i had done that Ken, but it makes no difference. Gold stars still disappear off my server, but thanks for trying to help. When i finish this I'll stick "RADICAL COSMOLOGY" up once more. You could perhaps let me know if it appears and disappears off your server. Thanks again. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a80e093-77ed-41ca-a23f-73b7429701df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457850 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 11:43:02 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > On 13/05/2018 14:57, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote: > >>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity? > >> > >> Hi Ken, > >> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much > >> better answers than any you've had so far............. > >> Not that i can answer it myself eh! > > > > What’s wrong with my answers? > > Well i have already told you that i don't believe in absolute velocity > Ken, but if you tell me how it can be measured i might change my mind. A paper on past experiments detecting absolute motion and proposed experiments to detect absolute motion is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > You can’t dismiss my answers by handwaving. > ' > Didn't mean to offend you Ken. I didn't tackle the question myself > because it's way outside my area of competence eh! > > >> All i've got for you is another question: > >> What happened to your > >> > >> "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....." > >> > >> I thought that was another very good thread of yours. > >> Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with > >> most of the threads i start myself eh! > > > > This thread is still on Google. Why don’t you gold starred the thread that you are interested. > > Indeed i had done that Ken, but it makes no difference. Gold stars still > disappear off my server, but thanks for trying to help. When i finish > this I'll stick "RADICAL COSMOLOGY" up once more. You could perhaps let > me know if it appears and disappears off your server. Thanks again. > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web