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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdv5cb$1luj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458705 |
On 5/21/18 12:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>>>>>> of reference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Motion is not a force. >>>>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>>>>>> and away from the center. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >>>>>> motion. High school basics. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. >>>> >>>> A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. >>> >>> A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and >>> maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object. >> >> That is true. The centripetal force does not provide or maintain the >> tangential motion. It can’t. It has no component in the tangential >> direction because the centripetal force is strictly radial. > > Too we agree on something. > >> >> But on the other hand, no force is required to maintain the tangential >> motion. You are incorrect to believe that a force in that direction is >> required. The correct explanation is in your book and is different than >> what you’ve made up. > > ROTFLOL.....so curved tangential motion and maintaining stable orbiting motion requires no force.....it just happens so we can claim that Newton explanation of gravity is complete? I don’t think so. I think you guy are spewing bull shit. I thin physicists don’t have a clue about the cause of gravity and they just go along with Newton’s explanation. Ken, I realize that you're gamely looking for some reason -- any reason -- for people to think your work is worthwhile. You generated your work from a position of the uneducated. You didn't read up on basic physics, and so in "thinking for yourself" you made a ton of bad guesses which are counter to basic high school physics. Somehow you think that unless Newtonian physics is a complete theory, then everything associated with Newtonian physics is wrong, and you should then make things up according to your "thinking for yourself". This apparently involved trying to explain circular motion for even a rock whirled on a string (which doesn't have anything to do with gravity) and invoking both a tangential force and a centrifugal force. Newton showed that circular motion from ANY centripetal force requires no tangential force and no centrifugal force. That applies whether the centripetal force is from electrostatics, or a string, or a spring, or the tension in a rod, or a magnetic field, or gravity. And it is true even if his theory of gravity was incomplete. You are grasping at straws and looking pretty desperate in the attempt. The backpedaling you've done in this thread has only made it worse. > My theory of gravity gives valid explanation for gravity. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdusnb$15st$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458683 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>>>> of reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Motion is not a force. >>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>>>> and away from the center. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >>>> >>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >>>> motion. High school basics. >>> >>> Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. >> >> A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. > > A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and > maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object. > >> >>> High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. >> >> Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the >> force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.” > > I was repeating what you said....I should have say that a force is > required to initiate and maintain orbiting motion. I can see that you are tweaking and correcting what you say, with the hopes of eventually getting it right. But you are going to continue floundering, guessing wrong time and time again. You’d save yourself all that embarrassment just by reading the chapter on circular motion in your introductory textbook. Is it really that hard to read an introductory textbook? > >> >>> All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity. >>> >>>> >>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>>>> single time. >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5188e370-6934-4770-9fe7-1d5cb5ed5075@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458693 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>>>>>> the basics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>>>>>> of reference. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Motion is not a force. > >>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >>>>>> and away from the center. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > >>>> > >>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of > >>>> motion. High school basics. > >>> > >>> Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. > >> > >> A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. > > > > A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and > > maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object. > > > >> > >>> High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. > >> > >> Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the > >> force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.” > > > > I was repeating what you said....I should have say that a force is > > required to initiate and maintain orbiting motion. > > I can see that you are tweaking and correcting what you say, with the hopes > of eventually getting it right. But you are going to continue floundering, > guessing wrong time and time again. You’d save yourself all that > embarrassment just by reading the chapter on circular motion in your > introductory textbook. Is it really that hard to read an introductory > textbook? Hey moron, I don’t believe in inertial motion in a gravity field. So why would I use it to explain gravity? > > > > >> > >>> All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on > >>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every > >>>>>>>> single time. > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdv1s3$1fen$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458708 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>>>>>> of reference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Motion is not a force. >>>>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>>>>>> and away from the center. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >>>>>> motion. High school basics. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. >>>> >>>> A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. >>> >>> A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and >>> maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object. >>> >>>> >>>>> High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. >>>> >>>> Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the >>>> force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.” >>> >>> I was repeating what you said....I should have say that a force is >>> required to initiate and maintain orbiting motion. >> >> I can see that you are tweaking and correcting what you say, with the hopes >> of eventually getting it right. But you are going to continue floundering, >> guessing wrong time and time again. You’d save yourself all that >> embarrassment just by reading the chapter on circular motion in your >> introductory textbook. Is it really that hard to read an introductory >> textbook? > > Hey moron, I don’t believe in inertial motion in a gravity field. So why > would I use it to explain gravity? As mentioned and requited back to you, you are the one that said a force is needed to initiate and maintain inertial motion. I see you scrambling to pedal back away from that. Doesn’t help your credibility. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>>>>>> single time. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdtc3h$h86$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458587 |
On 5/20/2018 3:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>> the basics. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> From Wikipedia: >>>> >>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>> of reference. >>>> >>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>> >>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >> >> Motion is not a force. >> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >> and away from the center. > > > Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. There doesn't need to be a force that initiates the motion. Also Newton also said something about maintaining motion. No force is needed to maintain motion. Newton 2, Ken 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90d8da23-1af2-4c98-b377-86d653de2070@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458642 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:49:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/20/2018 3:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>> the basics. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>> > >>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>> of reference. > >>>> > >>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>> > >>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> > >> Motion is not a force. > >> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >> and away from the center. > > > > > > Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > > There doesn't need to be a force that initiates the motion. Also Newton > also said something about maintaining motion. No force is needed to > maintain motion. Newton 2, Ken 0. Sigh....a force is needed to maintain continuous orbiting motion. In my theory, a continuous force (gravity) and a repulsive effect exists between the earth and the moon are needed to maintain orbiting motion. Without these opposing forces, the orbit of the moon will decay and crash into the earth. This is illustrated by various satellites: the gravity is pulling the satellite toward the center of the earth and there exists a repulsive effect exists between the satellite and the earth prevents the satellite crashing into the earth. This repulsive effect is called tangential motion but in real life it is derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they expand in the same direction as the universe expands. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6fd95fc-8c27-4875-b6c8-bf84a59e58e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458662 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:43:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Sigh....a force is needed to maintain continuous orbiting motion. Yes, a radial forces suffices. > In my theory, a continuous force (gravity) and a repulsive effect > exists between the earth and the moon are needed to maintain orbiting > motion. Perhaps in your model. But in Newtonian mechanics, only a radial force suffices. Newton showed this centuries ago and is now a simple, very simple mathematical routine to prove. So why use your model which requires 2 forces, whereas NM requires only one!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea581e3a-f404-48c4-9034-c926231eee08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458667 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:43:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Sigh....a force is needed to maintain continuous orbiting motion. > > Yes, a radial forces suffices. No a radial force alone is not suffice to maintain stable orbit. You need a force to initiate and maintain tangential motion. > > > In my theory, a continuous force (gravity) and a repulsive effect > > exists between the earth and the moon are needed to maintain orbiting > > motion. > > Perhaps in your model. But in Newtonian mechanics, only a radial force suffices. Newton showed this centuries ago and is now a simple, very simple mathematical routine to prove. Assertion is not a valid argument. As I pointed out above a radial force alone is not suffice to maintain a stable orbit. > > So why use your model which requires 2 forces, whereas NM requires only one!? Because that’s what is needed to maintain a stable orbit. Newton gravity have no cause of gravity. My theory provides a cause for gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdutiu$17j3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458690 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:43:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Sigh....a force is needed to maintain continuous orbiting motion. >> >> Yes, a radial forces suffices. > > No a radial force alone is not suffice to maintain stable orbit. You need > a force to initiate and maintain tangential motion. That is an incorrect assertion on your part. If you want to know why your hand goes around in a little circle when you whirl a Rick, then ASK. Don’t guess. Don’t try to think about it yourself. You will get it wrong. You have so far. >> >>> In my theory, a continuous force (gravity) and a repulsive effect >>> exists between the earth and the moon are needed to maintain orbiting >>> motion. >> >> Perhaps in your model. But in Newtonian mechanics, only a radial force >> suffices. Newton showed this centuries ago and is now a simple, very >> simple mathematical routine to prove. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. As I pointed out above a radial force > alone is not suffice to maintain a stable orbit. > >> >> So why use your model which requires 2 forces, whereas NM requires only one!? > > Because that’s what is needed to maintain a stable orbit. Newton gravity > have no cause of gravity. My theory provides a cause for gravity. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pduvme$1bdo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458696 |
On 5/21/18 11:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:43:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> >>>> Sigh....a force is needed to maintain continuous orbiting motion. >>> >>> Yes, a radial forces suffices. >> >> No a radial force alone is not suffice to maintain stable orbit. You need >> a force to initiate and maintain tangential motion. > > That is an incorrect assertion on your part. > If you want to know why your hand goes around in a little circle when you > whirl a Rick, then ASK. Don’t guess. Don’t try to think about it yourself. > You will get it wrong. You have so far. rock, not Rick. spellchecker overeager. > >>> >>>> In my theory, a continuous force (gravity) and a repulsive effect >>>> exists between the earth and the moon are needed to maintain orbiting >>>> motion. >>> >>> Perhaps in your model. But in Newtonian mechanics, only a radial force >>> suffices. Newton showed this centuries ago and is now a simple, very >>> simple mathematical routine to prove. >> >> Assertion is not a valid argument. As I pointed out above a radial force >> alone is not suffice to maintain a stable orbit. >> >>> >>> So why use your model which requires 2 forces, whereas NM requires only one!? >> >> Because that’s what is needed to maintain a stable orbit. Newton gravity >> have no cause of gravity. My theory provides a cause for gravity. >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9680135-0c58-4172-b0a3-ac8337b4bb70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458519 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:45:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>> > >>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>> about gravity... > >>> > >>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >> > >> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >> about gravity. > > > > That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > > > >> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > > > > Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > > single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > > described in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > the basics. Pot, kettle black and assertion is not a valid argument. > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>> > >>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>> > >>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >> > >> No comment? > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdsfeu$13r3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458541 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:45:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>> about gravity... >>>>> >>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>> >>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>> about gravity. >>> >>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>> >>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>> >>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>> described in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >> >> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >> the basics. > > Pot, kettle black and assertion is not a valid argument. I’m not uneducated in the basics. You are. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>> >>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>> >>>> No comment? >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 10:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pds0sh$m2f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458514 |
On 5/20/2018 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>> >>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>> >>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>> about gravity... >>> >>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >> >> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >> about gravity. > > That’s your conclusion.....not mine. So do you actually believe we should all be studying and learning about current gravitational theories? You don't seem to have done this yourself since you write stuff that is not part of Newtonian gravitation. > >> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > > Newton is not God so he can be wrong. Irrelevant, nobody claimed that Newton was never wrong or is God. All we are talking about is his specific mathematical proof about only a single force being necessary for stable orbits. > He visualized that gravity is a single force like the EM force. More than "visualized" it, he created a mathematical proof of that. > It is not. It is a composite force as I described in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf Newton had a mathematical proof. You only have a claim. To show Newton wrong you'd need to show a mistake in his proof or do something to discredit all of mathematics and its basis of math proofs. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>> >>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >> >> No comment? Still no comment?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf86c623-a2eb-4544-8021-76f4d1f85d4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458524 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 5/20/2018 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>> > >>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>> about gravity... > >>> > >>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >> > >> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >> about gravity. > > > > That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > > So do you actually believe we should all be studying and learning about > current gravitational theories? You don't seem to have done this > yourself since you write stuff that is not part of Newtonian gravitation. > > > >> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > > > > Newton is not God so he can be wrong. > > Irrelevant, nobody claimed that Newton was never wrong or is God. All we > are talking about is his specific mathematical proof about only a single > force being necessary for stable orbits. Sigh math can’t prove anything. There is more than one force to maintain orbiting motion. > > > He visualized that gravity is a single force like the EM force. > > More than “visualized" it, he created a mathematical proof of that. Math can’t prove anything. > > > It is not. It is a composite force as I described in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > Newton had a mathematical proof. You only have a claim. To show Newton > wrong you'd need to show a mistake in his proof or do something to > discredit all of mathematics and its basis of math proofs. I also have an equation in my link to describe the force of gravity. Also I included an explanation for the cause of gravity which Newton failed to do. > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>> > >>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>> > >>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >> > >> No comment? > > Still no comment? Hey moron, I done all that in my t\link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdk2pg$1uki$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458134 |
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. As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it. > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get > orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to > orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious > as physicists assert. > 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force > completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the > case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal > force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction. > > > >> >> Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal >> force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how >> stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. >> You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by >> Halliday and Resnick. >> >>> >>> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still >>>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a >>>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing >>>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. >>>> >>>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian >>>> physics. >>> >>> Fucking liar. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59654cf9-7f77-443f-85a3-727cf06a5efd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458145 |
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. > > As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn > Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it. > > > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get > > orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to > > orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious > > as physicists assert. > > 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force > > completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the > > case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal > > force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction. > > > > > > > >> > >> Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal > >> force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how > >> stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. > >> You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by > >> Halliday and Resnick. > >> > >>> > >>> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still > >>>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a > >>>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing > >>>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. > >>>> > >>>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian > >>>> physics. > >>> > >>> Fucking liar. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdkf1b$l55$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458166 |
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. > >> >> As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn >> Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it. >> >>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. >>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get >>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to >>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious >>> as physicists assert. >>> 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force >>> completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the >>> case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal >>> force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal >>>> force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how >>>> stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. >>>> You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by >>>> Halliday and Resnick. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still >>>>>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a >>>>>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing >>>>>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian >>>>>> physics. >>>>> >>>>> Fucking liar. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 05:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6eed1b60-270e-444d-b2f2-097c6c051abc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458183 |
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. > >> As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn > >> Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it. > >> > >>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. > >>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get > >>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to > >>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious > >>> as physicists assert. > >>> 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force > >>> completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the > >>> case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal > >>> force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal > >>>> force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how > >>>> stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. > >>>> You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by > >>>> Halliday and Resnick. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still > >>>>>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a > >>>>>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing > >>>>>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian > >>>>>> physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fucking liar. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdpfdr$fo1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458383 |
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 > > >>>> As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn >>>> Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it. >>>> >>>>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion. >>>>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get >>>>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to >>>>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious >>>>> as physicists assert. >>>>> 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force >>>>> completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the >>>>> case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal >>>>> force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal >>>>>> force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how >>>>>> stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved. >>>>>> You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by >>>>>> Halliday and Resnick. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still >>>>>>>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a >>>>>>>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing >>>>>>>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian >>>>>>>> physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fucking liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84b52f9a-acf3-42b3-bb09-4b2f973c07ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458400 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 11:21:34 AM UTC-4, 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. Newton didn’t know that the radial acceleration is caused by a combination of the CP and CF force. His mistake was that he called the combination of the CP and CF forces as a CP force alone. This caused generation of physicists and woodworkers such as yourself to continuously regurgitate what he said instead of doing the thinking for themselves. > > 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 Pot kettle black. I am an original thinker. I think outside the box. Try it and you’ll like it. It opens up all sorts new frontiers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web