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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4bd93a6-c319-40bd-a2d3-671334a29c96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459960 |
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the > > > > centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect > > > > force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting motion. > > > > > > Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in > > > the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. > > > > That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. > > It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the > > fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused > > by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination > > of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive > > effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow > > the divergent structure of theE-matrix. > > ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, > but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided > zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your > equations to the test and make the calculations. You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory > then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. > > Ed > > > > > > > > Thus this says that if there is a centripetal acceleration (an acceleration > > > toward the center), then there is a centripetal force (a force toward the > > > center). > > > > No, it is the attractive force of gravity between the interacting objects causes the centripetal acceleration. > > > > > > > > If you’d like to say that, because you have the benefit of having never > > > once studied physics, you know that Newton’s laws are all wrong, then you > > > are free to entertain that lunacy. Not one soul will pay any serious > > > attention to you except to mock you for it. > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Your move. Use those loose nuts. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> In the case of the so called centripetal force (centripetal acceleration) > > > >>>>>>> is derived from the attractive gravity force. Buoyancy is a form of > > > >>>>>>> gravity force and spring exerts is a form of EM force. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Those are wrong. Bzzzt. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. > > > >>>>> Buzz....you are full of shit. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> 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 | 2018-05-31 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pepjnm$1p2k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459963 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> [] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the >>>>> centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect >>>>> force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting motion. >>>> >>>> Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in >>>> the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. >>> >>> That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. >>> It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the >>> fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused >>> by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination >>> of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive >>> effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow >>> the divergent structure of theE-matrix. >> >> ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, >> but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided >> zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your >> equations to the test and make the calculations. > > You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you > admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence > of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed > new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. > in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >> >> If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory >> then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. > > You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. Ken the calculations of standard physics theories are splattered all over the place, though they are not reproduced here because Usenet is not a textbook. You haven’t managed to read anything where the standard calculations have ALREADY been done, but other people have. On the other hand, the ONLY calculations from your theory are the ones you produce and you haven’t produced any. So the statement still stands: calculations from standard physics are ALREADY done, calculations from your theory are NOT done at all. > >> >> Ed >>> >>>> >>>> Thus this says that if there is a centripetal acceleration (an acceleration >>>> toward the center), then there is a centripetal force (a force toward the >>>> center). >>> >>> No, it is the attractive force of gravity between the interacting >>> objects causes the centripetal acceleration. >>> >>>> >>>> If you’d like to say that, because you have the benefit of having never >>>> once studied physics, you know that Newton’s laws are all wrong, then you >>>> are free to entertain that lunacy. Not one soul will pay any serious >>>> attention to you except to mock you for it. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your move. Use those loose nuts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the case of the so called centripetal force (centripetal acceleration) >>>>>>>>>>> is derived from the attractive gravity force. Buoyancy is a form of >>>>>>>>>>> gravity force and spring exerts is a form of EM force. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those are wrong. Bzzzt. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. >>>>>>>>> Buzz....you are full of shit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 | 2018-05-31 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b352590c-c628-4b98-83f8-982f2ce696d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459967 |
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >> [] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the > >>>>> centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect > >>>>> force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting motion. > >>>> > >>>> Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in > >>>> the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. > >>> > >>> That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. > >>> It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the > >>> fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused > >>> by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination > >>> of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive > >>> effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow > >>> the divergent structure of theE-matrix. > >> > >> ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, > >> but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided > >> zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your > >> equations to the test and make the calculations. > > > > You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you > > admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence > > of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed > > new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. > > in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > >> > >> If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory > >> then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. > > > > You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. > > Ken the calculations of standard physics theories are splattered all over > the place, though they are not reproduced here because Usenet is not a > textbook. You haven’t managed to read anything where the standard > calculations have ALREADY been done, but other people have. > > On the other hand, the ONLY calculations from your theory are the ones you > produce and you haven’t produced any. > > So the statement still stands: calculations from standard physics are > ALREADY done, calculations from your theory are NOT done at all. Hey moron, I have a better understand physics than you. You claimed that centripetal acceleration is a force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pepn2n$1vjj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459971 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> [] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the >>>>>>> centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect >>>>>>> force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in >>>>>> the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. >>>>> >>>>> That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. >>>>> It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the >>>>> fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused >>>>> by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination >>>>> of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive >>>>> effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow >>>>> the divergent structure of theE-matrix. >>>> >>>> ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, >>>> but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided >>>> zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your >>>> equations to the test and make the calculations. >>> >>> You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you >>> admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence >>> of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed >>> new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. >>> in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>> >>>> >>>> If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory >>>> then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. >>> >>> You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. >> >> Ken the calculations of standard physics theories are splattered all over >> the place, though they are not reproduced here because Usenet is not a >> textbook. You haven’t managed to read anything where the standard >> calculations have ALREADY been done, but other people have. >> >> On the other hand, the ONLY calculations from your theory are the ones you >> produce and you haven’t produced any. >> >> So the statement still stands: calculations from standard physics are >> ALREADY done, calculations from your theory are NOT done at all. > > Hey moron, I have a better understand physics than you. You claimed that > centripetal acceleration is a force. I did not. You cannot read. Moreover it is STILL true that standard physics has already produced calculations and you have not. Babblers die alone. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9430e28-767c-4434-8671-303dac2bfc73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459973 |
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:48:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>> [] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the > >>>>>>> centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect > >>>>>>> force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting motion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in > >>>>>> the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. > >>>>> > >>>>> That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. > >>>>> It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the > >>>>> fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused > >>>>> by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination > >>>>> of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive > >>>>> effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow > >>>>> the divergent structure of theE-matrix. > >>>> > >>>> ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, > >>>> but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided > >>>> zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your > >>>> equations to the test and make the calculations. > >>> > >>> You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you > >>> admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence > >>> of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed > >>> new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. > >>> in the following link: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > >>> > >>>> > >>>> If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory > >>>> then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. > >>> > >>> You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. > >> > >> Ken the calculations of standard physics theories are splattered all over > >> the place, though they are not reproduced here because Usenet is not a > >> textbook. You haven’t managed to read anything where the standard > >> calculations have ALREADY been done, but other people have. > >> > >> On the other hand, the ONLY calculations from your theory are the ones you > >> produce and you haven’t produced any. > >> > >> So the statement still stands: calculations from standard physics are > >> ALREADY done, calculations from your theory are NOT done at all. > > > > Hey moron, I have a better understand physics than you. You claimed that > > centripetal acceleration is a force. > > I did not. You cannot read. Yes you did > > Moreover it is STILL true that standard physics has already produced > calculations and you have not. > > Babblers die alone. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pepsc5$9a6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459975 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:48:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the >>>>>>>>> centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect >>>>>>>>> force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting motion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in >>>>>>>> the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. >>>>>>> It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the >>>>>>> fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused >>>>>>> by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination >>>>>>> of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive >>>>>>> effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow >>>>>>> the divergent structure of theE-matrix. >>>>>> >>>>>> ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, >>>>>> but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided >>>>>> zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your >>>>>> equations to the test and make the calculations. >>>>> >>>>> You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you >>>>> admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence >>>>> of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed >>>>> new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. >>>>> in the following link: >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory >>>>>> then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. >>>>> >>>>> You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. >>>> >>>> Ken the calculations of standard physics theories are splattered all over >>>> the place, though they are not reproduced here because Usenet is not a >>>> textbook. You haven’t managed to read anything where the standard >>>> calculations have ALREADY been done, but other people have. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the ONLY calculations from your theory are the ones you >>>> produce and you haven’t produced any. >>>> >>>> So the statement still stands: calculations from standard physics are >>>> ALREADY done, calculations from your theory are NOT done at all. >>> >>> Hey moron, I have a better understand physics than you. You claimed that >>> centripetal acceleration is a force. >> >> I did not. You cannot read. > > Yes you did Quote me, you senile fart. > >> >> Moreover it is STILL true that standard physics has already produced >> calculations and you have not. >> >> Babblers die alone. >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pejuts$qvk$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #459705 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >That's right. There is no such thing as centripetal or centrifugal >forces. There are centripetal and centrifugal accelerations and both are >caused by the attractive or repulsive EM force. Stupid Ken, you just contradicted yourself. "No such thing" as those forces but then you say they are caused by EM forces? Regardless, the _definition_ of force is F=m*a. If there is a mass accelerating, then there is a force causing the acceleration. Period. p.s. Ken, have you looked up "centrifugal force" in a dictionary yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdumbc$pcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458659 |
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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > >> >> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > > You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99cefdb0-6303-4bcd-b972-7afe913bf416@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458672 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. > > Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. > > > > >> > >> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > > > > You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. > > Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It > is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at > your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read > Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a > lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you > and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own > head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdusn8$15st$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458681 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. >> >> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > > Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to > some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your textbook. Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what feeds your mental condition? >> >>> >>>> >>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>> >>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. >> >> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It >> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at >> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read >> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a >> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you >> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own >> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c33f1d9-be9f-40ba-8414-6c81f4c6dd55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458691 |
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 10:50:24 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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. > >> > >> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > > > > Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to > > some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. > > A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at > least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit. > > You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and > what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your > textbook. > > Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, > you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what > feeds your mental condition? > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > >>> > >>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. > >> > >> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It > >> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at > >> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read > >> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a > >> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you > >> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own > >> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdv12p$1e0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458704 |
On 5/21/18 12:18 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 10:50:24 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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. >>>> >>>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. >>> >>> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to >>> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. >> >> A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at >> least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. > > CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit. I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed to maintain motion. That's Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum. Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time. This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting inertially (no forces). If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts. GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS. > > >> >> You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and >> what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your >> textbook. >> >> Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, >> you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what >> feeds your mental condition? >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>>>> >>>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. >>>> >>>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It >>>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at >>>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read >>>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a >>>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you >>>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own >>>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5383bdb-d0db-40d5-a7f7-a38e11da2794@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458718 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:53:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/21/18 12:18 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 10:50:24 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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. > >>>> > >>>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > >>> > >>> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to > >>> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. > >> > >> A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at > >> least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. > > > > CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit. > > I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get > shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to > maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to > initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the > statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed > to maintain motion. That’s Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum. Moron you need a force to initiate and to maintain curved tangential motion. The rest of your rambling is ignored. It is irrelevant to our discussion. > > Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential > motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases > but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a > string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. > Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate > the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do > not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a > package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the > basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just > dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The > parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the > train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling > there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that > tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket > will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the > arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time. > > This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from > outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the > comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on > it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a > CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied > here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting > inertially (no forces). > > If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained > in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and > you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to > tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts. > > GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS. > > > > > > >> > >> You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and > >> what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your > >> textbook. > >> > >> Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, > >> you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what > >> feeds your mental condition? > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. > >>>> > >>>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It > >>>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at > >>>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read > >>>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a > >>>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you > >>>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own > >>>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdvh5s$aja$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458759 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:53:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/21/18 12:18 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 10:50:24 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, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to >>>>> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. >>>> >>>> A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at >>>> least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. >>> >>> CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force >>> to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the >>> CP force provides a stable orbit. >> >> I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get >> shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to >> maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to >> initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the >> statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed >> to maintain motion. That’s Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum. > > Moron you need a force to initiate and to maintain curved tangential motion. Ah so you’ve regressed. The tweaked language you wrote earlier was better. Now back to ground zero. > The rest of your rambling is ignored. It is irrelevant to our discussion. >> >> Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential >> motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases >> but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a >> string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. >> Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate >> the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do >> not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a >> package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the >> basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just >> dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The >> parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the >> train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling >> there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that >> tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket >> will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the >> arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time. >> >> This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from >> outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the >> comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on >> it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a >> CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied >> here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting >> inertially (no forces). >> >> If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained >> in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and >> you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to >> tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts. >> >> GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and >>>> what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your >>>> textbook. >>>> >>>> Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, >>>> you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what >>>> feeds your mental condition? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It >>>>>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at >>>>>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read >>>>>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a >>>>>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you >>>>>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own >>>>>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fb1dd3d-aa17-4ec1-b0fe-5f35ab316798@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458594 |
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. High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdumbd$pcb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458666 |
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. > 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.” > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e431d24-64c3-4c21-a67f-8f3ba84d6c89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458673 |
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. > > > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdusna$15st$2@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. 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. 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. > >> >>> 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. > >> >>> 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 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a865004-32e1-44d3-afcb-7a278e866de8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458692 |
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. My theory of gravity gives valid explanation for gravity. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > >> > >>> 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. > > > >> > >>> 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 | <pdv1s2$1fen$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458705 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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..... That’s right. > it just happens so we can claim that Newton explanation of gravity is complete? No. It’s known that Newton’s explanation of gravity is not complete. But this doesn’t mean every facet of Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Your approach seems to be that if there are any open questions in a theory at all, then the whole thing should be chucked and you can start guessing what the right answer is. That’s not how to do science. > 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, you can dream up all sorts of conspiracy theories if you want. It’s easier than actually learning some physics, I guess. You always look for the easy way out. > My theory of gravity gives valid explanation for gravity. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>>> >>>>> 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]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web