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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe4mgu$tsk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459004 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:35:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:48:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:28:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/21/18 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:01:54 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to >>>>>>>>>>> maintain orbiting motion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, just a radial force suffices and the proof is simple. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No just a radial force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. You >>>>>>>>> need a tangential effect to counteract the radial CP force to >>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're groping around for words that won't get shot down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do need tangential motion. >>>>>>>> Tangential motion requires no force . >>>>>>>> There is therefore no tangential force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey moron,curved tangential motion requires a force to maintain. >>>>>> >>>>>> No it doesn’t. Angular momentum is conserved without the application of a >>>>>> tangential force. Stop dancing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid even for a woodworker. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Every reference on the >>>>>>>> planet makes it clear that this is a fictitious force. And it doesn't >>>>>>>> matter what your intuition says. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, the CF force has effect on physical processes so it is not >>>>>>> fictitious. For example: the centrifuge use the CF forestial motion e to >>>>>>> separate liquids of different densities or separate solid from liquid. >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s the centripetal force that does that separation. There is no >>>>>> centrifugal force. You’ve never learned how a centrifuge really works. >>>>> >>>>> So the heavier solid knows to move away from the center of the spin >>>>> because of the centripetal force? >>>> >>>> Yes! If you had studied physics, for example, you would know what makes >>>> things float in a fluid: buoyancy force, caused by differential in fluid >>>> pressure. In a centrifuge, this buoyancy force is centripetal and the >>>> differentiation is magnified. >>> >>> So you don’t know the meaning of the centripetal force.....right? >> >> Ken, stop it. This is your childish tactic to get someone to tell you an >> answer when you don’t want to look it up in your physics book. > > I am serious. You don’t know the meaning of the CP force.... I’ve already told you twice in this thread. > the centrifuge does not based of the centripetal force. And that’s wrong. Your introductory textbook explains it. It does absolutely no good to ask why it’s called a centrifuge, then be told where to find out how a centrifuge works, and then just claim that that’s wrong. If you’re not going to believe anything explained in introductory physics, then 1) don’t bother asking, 2) give up on doing physics. > > >> I have >> ALREADY told you what centripetal force means in this thread. Either you >> weren’t paying attention or you can’t remember what people told you >> yesterday. Can you look back at past posts to find out where I told you >> (twice) what centripetal force means? Are you completely incompetent? >> >>> Also, if only CP force is real why did they name the device centrifuge? >> >> The same reason they say astronauts are weightless in the Space Station >> when they aren’t weightless at all. Conventional language is sloppy. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> I don’t think so. I think you are just making up stuff as you go along. >>>> >>>> Not at all! All this is gone over in introductory physics and you even have >>>> a book on it! Look at how much you’ve missed by not reading!! >> >> Read! What reason not to? >> >>>> >>>>> It appears that it is pointless and a waste of time talking to you. Good-bye. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you just say that what is needed for a stable orbit is a centripetal >>>>>>>> force like gravity, plus tangential motion, and THAT'S IT, then you'd >>>>>>>> have the right answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would I say that when I know that’s wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, you’re saying high school basics physics is wrong. And you never >>>>>> learned basic high school physics. So who would believe you? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Besides curved tangential motion requires a force to maintain. Gee you are so stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No tangential force, no centrifugal force. >>>>>>>> Just a centripetal force and tangential motion. Period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you argument is all assertions. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, just basic physics you never learned. (And now you’re too feeble to >>>>>> learn it) >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 | 2018-05-24 05:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e71fe2cf-9b7c-4b6c-8030-1712115e57ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459006 |
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:30:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:35:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:48:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:28:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/21/18 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:01:54 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to > >>>>>>>>>>> maintain orbiting motion. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, just a radial force suffices and the proof is simple. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No just a radial force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. You > >>>>>>>>> need a tangential effect to counteract the radial CP force to > >>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're groping around for words that won't get shot down. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You do need tangential motion. > >>>>>>>> Tangential motion requires no force . > >>>>>>>> There is therefore no tangential force. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey moron,curved tangential motion requires a force to maintain. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No it doesn’t. Angular momentum is conserved without the application of a > >>>>>> tangential force. Stop dancing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid even for a woodworker. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Every reference on the > >>>>>>>> planet makes it clear that this is a fictitious force. And it doesn't > >>>>>>>> matter what your intuition says. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, the CF force has effect on physical processes so it is not > >>>>>>> fictitious. For example: the centrifuge use the CF forestial motion e to > >>>>>>> separate liquids of different densities or separate solid from liquid. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s the centripetal force that does that separation. There is no > >>>>>> centrifugal force. You’ve never learned how a centrifuge really works. > >>>>> > >>>>> So the heavier solid knows to move away from the center of the spin > >>>>> because of the centripetal force? > >>>> > >>>> Yes! If you had studied physics, for example, you would know what makes > >>>> things float in a fluid: buoyancy force, caused by differential in fluid > >>>> pressure. In a centrifuge, this buoyancy force is centripetal and the > >>>> differentiation is magnified. > >>> > >>> So you don’t know the meaning of the centripetal force.....right? > >> > >> Ken, stop it. This is your childish tactic to get someone to tell you an > >> answer when you don’t want to look it up in your physics book. > > > > I am serious. You don’t know the meaning of the CP force.... > > I’ve already told you twice in this thread. You told me that the centrifuge is based on the CP force and that’s absolutely wrong. > > > the centrifuge does not based of the centripetal force. > > And that’s wrong. Moron, the centrifuge based on a force that throws material away from the center of rotation. The CP force causes materiall to move toward the center of rotation. >Your introductory textbook explains it. If the text book explains that the centrifuge is based on the CP force then it is wrong. I suspect that you don’t unstained what you read. >It does > absolutely no good to ask why it’s called a centrifuge, then be told where > to find out how a centrifuge works, and then just claim that that’s wrong. I said that you are wrong. You are a woodworker you don’t understand what you read. > If you’re not going to believe anything explained in introductory physics, > then 1) don’t bother asking, 2) give up on doing physics. I didn’t ask. I merely pointed out that you made wrong assertions that is completely wrong on the operation of the centrifuge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe6e9p$1l65$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459051 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:30:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:35:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:48:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:28:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/18 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:01:54 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain orbiting motion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, just a radial force suffices and the proof is simple. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No just a radial force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. You >>>>>>>>>>> need a tangential effect to counteract the radial CP force to >>>>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're groping around for words that won't get shot down. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You do need tangential motion. >>>>>>>>>> Tangential motion requires no force . >>>>>>>>>> There is therefore no tangential force. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey moron,curved tangential motion requires a force to maintain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it doesn’t. Angular momentum is conserved without the application of a >>>>>>>> tangential force. Stop dancing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid even for a woodworker. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Every reference on the >>>>>>>>>> planet makes it clear that this is a fictitious force. And it doesn't >>>>>>>>>> matter what your intuition says. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron, the CF force has effect on physical processes so it is not >>>>>>>>> fictitious. For example: the centrifuge use the CF forestial motion e to >>>>>>>>> separate liquids of different densities or separate solid from liquid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That’s the centripetal force that does that separation. There is no >>>>>>>> centrifugal force. You’ve never learned how a centrifuge really works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the heavier solid knows to move away from the center of the spin >>>>>>> because of the centripetal force? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes! If you had studied physics, for example, you would know what makes >>>>>> things float in a fluid: buoyancy force, caused by differential in fluid >>>>>> pressure. In a centrifuge, this buoyancy force is centripetal and the >>>>>> differentiation is magnified. >>>>> >>>>> So you don’t know the meaning of the centripetal force.....right? >>>> >>>> Ken, stop it. This is your childish tactic to get someone to tell you an >>>> answer when you don’t want to look it up in your physics book. >>> >>> I am serious. You don’t know the meaning of the CP force.... >> >> I’ve already told you twice in this thread. > > You told me that the centrifuge is based on the CP force and that’s absolutely wrong. > >> >>> the centrifuge does not based of the centripetal force. >> >> And that’s wrong. > > Moron, the centrifuge based on a force that throws material away from the > center of rotation. No it is not. That is how you THINK it works, but it is not how it really works. Your imagination is not reality. If you want to find out how something works, get out of your own head. Your imagination does not produce correct answers. > The CP force causes materiall to move toward the center of rotation. > >> Your introductory textbook explains it. > > If the text book explains that the centrifuge is based on the CP force > then it is wrong. I suspect that you don’t unstained what you read. Hard to misunderstand it when it is so plainly written. You’ve never read how it works. > >> It does >> absolutely no good to ask why it’s called a centrifuge, then be told where >> to find out how a centrifuge works, and then just claim that that’s wrong. > > I said that you are wrong. You are a woodworker you don’t understand what you read. > >> If you’re not going to believe anything explained in introductory physics, >> then 1) don’t bother asking, 2) give up on doing physics. > > I didn’t ask. I merely pointed out that you made wrong assertions that is > completely wrong on the operation of the centrifuge. Sorry Ken, but the designers of centrifuges are the experts on how they work. NOT YOU. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab8fc9b5-eaba-496c-a91f-5ada181b4219@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459060 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 9:22:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:30:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:35:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:48:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:28:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/18 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:01:54 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain orbiting motion. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, just a radial force suffices and the proof is simple. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No just a radial force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. You > >>>>>>>>>>> need a tangential effect to counteract the radial CP force to > >>>>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You're groping around for words that won't get shot down. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You do need tangential motion. > >>>>>>>>>> Tangential motion requires no force . > >>>>>>>>>> There is therefore no tangential force. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hey moron,curved tangential motion requires a force to maintain. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No it doesn’t. Angular momentum is conserved without the application of a > >>>>>>>> tangential force. Stop dancing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid even for a woodworker. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Every reference on the > >>>>>>>>>> planet makes it clear that this is a fictitious force. And it doesn't > >>>>>>>>>> matter what your intuition says. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, the CF force has effect on physical processes so it is not > >>>>>>>>> fictitious. For example: the centrifuge use the CF forestial motion e to > >>>>>>>>> separate liquids of different densities or separate solid from liquid. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That’s the centripetal force that does that separation. There is no > >>>>>>>> centrifugal force. You’ve never learned how a centrifuge really works. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So the heavier solid knows to move away from the center of the spin > >>>>>>> because of the centripetal force? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes! If you had studied physics, for example, you would know what makes > >>>>>> things float in a fluid: buoyancy force, caused by differential in fluid > >>>>>> pressure. In a centrifuge, this buoyancy force is centripetal and the > >>>>>> differentiation is magnified. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you don’t know the meaning of the centripetal force.....right? > >>>> > >>>> Ken, stop it. This is your childish tactic to get someone to tell you an > >>>> answer when you don’t want to look it up in your physics book. > >>> > >>> I am serious. You don’t know the meaning of the CP force.... > >> > >> I’ve already told you twice in this thread. > > > > You told me that the centrifuge is based on the CP force and that’s absolutely wrong. > > > >> > >>> the centrifuge does not based of the centripetal force. > >> > >> And that’s wrong. > > > > Moron, the centrifuge based on a force that throws material away from the > > center of rotation. > > No it is not. That is how you THINK it works, but it is not how it really > works. Your imagination is not reality. If you want to find out how > something works, get out of your own head. Your imagination does not > produce correct answers. Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal force to its contents, typically to separate fluids of different densities (e.g., cream from milk) or liquids from solids. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > The CP force causes materiall to move toward the center of rotation. > > > >> Your introductory textbook explains it. > > > > If the text book explains that the centrifuge is based on the CP force > > then it is wrong. I suspect that you don’t unstained what you read. > > Hard to misunderstand it when it is so plainly written. You’ve never read > how it works. > > > > >> It does > >> absolutely no good to ask why it’s called a centrifuge, then be told where > >> to find out how a centrifuge works, and then just claim that that’s wrong. > > > > I said that you are wrong. You are a woodworker you don’t understand what you read. > > > >> If you’re not going to believe anything explained in introductory physics, > >> then 1) don’t bother asking, 2) give up on doing physics. > > > > I didn’t ask. I merely pointed out that you made wrong assertions that is > > completely wrong on the operation of the centrifuge. > > Sorry Ken, but the designers of centrifuges are the experts on how they > work. NOT YOU. > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe6se1$im8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459087 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 9:22:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:30:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 9:35:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:48:05 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:28:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:40:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/18 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 9:01:54 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain orbiting motion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, just a radial force suffices and the proof is simple. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No just a radial force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. You >>>>>>>>>>>>> need a tangential effect to counteract the radial CP force to >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're groping around for words that won't get shot down. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You do need tangential motion. >>>>>>>>>>>> Tangential motion requires no force . >>>>>>>>>>>> There is therefore no tangential force. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron,curved tangential motion requires a force to maintain. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No it doesn’t. Angular momentum is conserved without the application of a >>>>>>>>>> tangential force. Stop dancing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid even for a woodworker. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as centrifugal force. Every reference on the >>>>>>>>>>>> planet makes it clear that this is a fictitious force. And it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> matter what your intuition says. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, the CF force has effect on physical processes so it is not >>>>>>>>>>> fictitious. For example: the centrifuge use the CF forestial motion e to >>>>>>>>>>> separate liquids of different densities or separate solid from liquid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That’s the centripetal force that does that separation. There is no >>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force. You’ve never learned how a centrifuge really works. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So the heavier solid knows to move away from the center of the spin >>>>>>>>> because of the centripetal force? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes! If you had studied physics, for example, you would know what makes >>>>>>>> things float in a fluid: buoyancy force, caused by differential in fluid >>>>>>>> pressure. In a centrifuge, this buoyancy force is centripetal and the >>>>>>>> differentiation is magnified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you don’t know the meaning of the centripetal force.....right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, stop it. This is your childish tactic to get someone to tell you an >>>>>> answer when you don’t want to look it up in your physics book. >>>>> >>>>> I am serious. You don’t know the meaning of the CP force.... >>>> >>>> I’ve already told you twice in this thread. >>> >>> You told me that the centrifuge is based on the CP force and that’s absolutely wrong. >>> >>>> >>>>> the centrifuge does not based of the centripetal force. >>>> >>>> And that’s wrong. >>> >>> Moron, the centrifuge based on a force that throws material away from the >>> center of rotation. >> >> No it is not. That is how you THINK it works, but it is not how it really >> works. Your imagination is not reality. If you want to find out how >> something works, get out of your own head. Your imagination does not >> produce correct answers. > > Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal > force to its contents, typically to separate fluids of different > densities (e.g., cream from milk) or liquids from solids. Never use a conventional language dictionary for physics explanations. Conventional language dictionaries get things like weightlessness wrong too. Conventional language is sloppy. > > Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> >>> The CP force causes materiall to move toward the center of rotation. >>> >>>> Your introductory textbook explains it. >>> >>> If the text book explains that the centrifuge is based on the CP force >>> then it is wrong. I suspect that you don’t unstained what you read. >> >> Hard to misunderstand it when it is so plainly written. You’ve never read >> how it works. >> >>> >>>> It does >>>> absolutely no good to ask why it’s called a centrifuge, then be told where >>>> to find out how a centrifuge works, and then just claim that that’s wrong. >>> >>> I said that you are wrong. You are a woodworker you don’t understand what you read. >>> >>>> If you’re not going to believe anything explained in introductory physics, >>>> then 1) don’t bother asking, 2) give up on doing physics. >>> >>> I didn’t ask. I merely pointed out that you made wrong assertions that is >>> completely wrong on the operation of the centrifuge. >> >> Sorry Ken, but the designers of centrifuges are the experts on how they >> work. NOT YOU. >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c468ee40-a4ef-466e-9c8f-f0ff5baf7c84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459087 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such force, as its definitions specify.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe70od$r7a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459102 |
rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > > So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > > I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > force, as its definitions specify. > Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. OR his thinking is that dictionary editors know how centrifuges work better than physicists or centrifuge designers do, and so the dictionary is right and physicists are wrong. OR his thinking is that centrifugal force is a common sense idea that Ken Seto understands, and so even if the entire expert community says the centrifugal force is fictional, then Ken is right and everyone is wrong. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41f80673-fb66-4203-84ed-03ec45df1a71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459106 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > >> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > > > > So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > > > > I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > > force, as its definitions specify. > > > > Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then > physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of > centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists > failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of the centrifugal force. It seems that one of you is wrong. My money is on you who is wrong....failed to understand the centrifugal force. > > > OR his thinking is that dictionary editors know how centrifuges work better > than physicists or centrifuge designers do, and so the dictionary is right > and physicists are wrong. > > OR his thinking is that centrifugal force is a common sense idea that Ken > Seto understands, and so even if the entire expert community says the > centrifugal force is fictional, then Ken is right and everyone is wrong. > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 08:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pe91jt$2gb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459209 |
On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> >>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: >>> >>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. >>> >>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such >>> force, as its definitions specify. >>> >> >> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then >> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of >> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists >> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. > > No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of the centrifugal force. That is not a true statement. To find out what the designers of centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses about what they used to design them. You should try reading. > It seems that one of you is wrong. My money is on you who is wrong....failed to understand the centrifugal force. > > >> >> >> OR his thinking is that dictionary editors know how centrifuges work better >> than physicists or centrifuge designers do, and so the dictionary is right >> and physicists are wrong. >> >> OR his thinking is that centrifugal force is a common sense idea that Ken >> Seto understands, and so even if the entire expert community says the >> centrifugal force is fictional, then Ken is right and everyone is wrong. >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-05-25 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9842d489-5bf6-4a8a-8d26-e266920ceb63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459211 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > >>> > >>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > >>> > >>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > >>> force, as its definitions specify. > >>> > >> > >> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then > >> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of > >> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists > >> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. > > > > No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of the centrifugal force. > > That is not a true statement. Assertion is not a valid argument. >To find out what the designers of > centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about > their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses > about what they used to design them. Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? > > You should try reading. > > > It seems that one of you is wrong. My money is on you who is wrong....failed to understand the centrifugal force. > > > > > >> > >> > >> OR his thinking is that dictionary editors know how centrifuges work better > >> than physicists or centrifuge designers do, and so the dictionary is right > >> and physicists are wrong. > >> > >> OR his thinking is that centrifugal force is a common sense idea that Ken > >> Seto understands, and so even if the entire expert community says the > >> centrifugal force is fictional, then Ken is right and everyone is wrong. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2018-05-25 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe9fod$st6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459216 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: >>>>> >>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. >>>>> >>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such >>>>> force, as its definitions specify. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then >>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of >>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists >>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. >>> >>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The >>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of the centrifugal force. >> >> That is not a true statement. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. > >> To find out what the designers of >> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about >> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses >> about what they used to design them. > > Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? I HAVE. You have not. Case closed. > > >> >> You should try reading. >> >>> It seems that one of you is wrong. My money is on you who is >>> wrong....failed to understand the centrifugal force. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> OR his thinking is that dictionary editors know how centrifuges work better >>>> than physicists or centrifuge designers do, and so the dictionary is right >>>> and physicists are wrong. >>>> >>>> OR his thinking is that centrifugal force is a common sense idea that Ken >>>> Seto understands, and so even if the entire expert community says the >>>> centrifugal force is fictional, then Ken is right and everyone is wrong. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2018-05-25 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9cda84c-e48f-40a6-a358-0dcc0fcf4ee7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459253 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > >>>>> > >>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > >>>>> force, as its definitions specify. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then > >>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of > >>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists > >>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. > >>> > >>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The > >>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of the centrifugal force. > >> > >> That is not a true statement. > > > > Assertion is not a valid argument. > > > >> To find out what the designers of > >> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about > >> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses > >> about what they used to design them. > > > > Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? > > I HAVE. You have not. > Case closed. > Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pea0bu$1nv1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459291 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such >>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then >>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of >>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists >>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. >>>>> >>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The >>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of >>>>> the centrifugal force. >>>> >>>> That is not a true statement. >>> >>> Assertion is not a valid argument. >>> >>>> To find out what the designers of >>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about >>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses >>>> about what they used to design them. >>> >>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? >> >> I HAVE. You have not. >> Case closed. >> > > Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? > It is a fictitious force, not a real force. Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it right. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe67d329-c5a9-4960-bc49-e977ae6c020b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459301 |
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Because Space Time is “EMERGENT” and not really there except as speed^2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/YN4hfm7wfT02ObDO2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e015011c-9e14-4181-8452-d500a6ce0b42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459301 |
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > >>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then > >>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of > >>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists > >>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. > >>>>> > >>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The > >>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of > >>>>> the centrifugal force. > >>>> > >>>> That is not a true statement. > >>> > >>> Assertion is not a valid argument. > >>> > >>>> To find out what the designers of > >>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about > >>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses > >>>> about what they used to design them. > >>> > >>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? > >> > >> I HAVE. You have not. > >> Case closed. > >> > > > > Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? > > > > It is a fictitious force, not a real force. > Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work > get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. > Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it > right. > Answer this: If centrifugal force doesn’t exist, what is the force they use to separate the U 235 from the rest of the U isotopes to make atomic bomb??? Also why do they called the machine they use to do the separation a centrifuge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pebtfn$n8p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459361 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such >>>>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then >>>>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of >>>>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists >>>>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The >>>>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of >>>>>>> the centrifugal force. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not a true statement. >>>>> >>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. >>>>> >>>>>> To find out what the designers of >>>>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about >>>>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses >>>>>> about what they used to design them. >>>>> >>>>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? >>>> >>>> I HAVE. You have not. >>>> Case closed. >>>> >>> >>> Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? >>> >> >> It is a fictitious force, not a real force. >> Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work >> get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. >> Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it >> right. >> > > Answer this: If centrifugal force doesn’t exist, what is the force they > use to separate the U 235 from the rest of the U isotopes to make atomic > bomb??? Also why do they called the machine they use to do the separation a centrifuge? > Buoyancy. Oil floats on water in a jar because of buoyancy, which pushes oil up. If you put oil and water in a centrifuge, the oil will be pushed toward the center for the same reason. They call it a centrifuge because it is a centrifuge. If you want to know what principle governs the design and operation of a centrifuge, consult the documentation of the designers. Not a dictionary. Not your own head. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <527b07e5-1f66-4b7a-bb2f-fde15f383585@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459370 |
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:11:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > >>>>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then > >>>>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of > >>>>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists > >>>>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The > >>>>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of > >>>>>>> the centrifugal force. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is not a true statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. > >>>>> > >>>>>> To find out what the designers of > >>>>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about > >>>>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses > >>>>>> about what they used to design them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? > >>>> > >>>> I HAVE. You have not. > >>>> Case closed. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? > >>> > >> > >> It is a fictitious force, not a real force. > >> Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work > >> get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. > >> Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it > >> right. > >> > > > > Answer this: If centrifugal force doesn’t exist, what is the force they > > use to separate the U 235 from the rest of the U isotopes to make atomic > > bomb??? Also why do they called the machine they use to do the separation a centrifuge? > > > > Buoyancy. Oil floats on water in a jar because of buoyancy, which pushes > oil up. If you put oil and water in a centrifuge, the oil will be pushed > toward the center for the same reason. Hey fool, oil is already floating on top of water. I asked you: what force that separate the U325 from the rest of the U-isotopes. No answer on that. > > They call it a centrifuge because it is a centrifuge. If you want to know > what principle governs the design and operation of a centrifuge, consult > the documentation of the designers. Not a dictionary. Not your own head. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pec52a$14q9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459390 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:11:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such >>>>>>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then >>>>>>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of >>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists >>>>>>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The >>>>>>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of >>>>>>>>> the centrifugal force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is not a true statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To find out what the designers of >>>>>>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about >>>>>>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses >>>>>>>> about what they used to design them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? >>>>>> >>>>>> I HAVE. You have not. >>>>>> Case closed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is a fictitious force, not a real force. >>>> Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work >>>> get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. >>>> Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it >>>> right. >>>> >>> >>> Answer this: If centrifugal force doesn’t exist, what is the force they >>> use to separate the U 235 from the rest of the U isotopes to make atomic >>> bomb??? Also why do they called the machine they use to do the separation a centrifuge? >>> >> >> Buoyancy. Oil floats on water in a jar because of buoyancy, which pushes >> oil up. If you put oil and water in a centrifuge, the oil will be pushed >> toward the center for the same reason. > > Hey fool, oil is already floating on top of water. And if the axis of the centrifuge tube is horizontal? >I asked you: what force that separate the U325 from the rest of the > U-isotopes. No answer on that. I answered. Buoyancy. Which is a centripetal force. > >> >> They call it a centrifuge because it is a centrifuge. If you want to know >> what principle governs the design and operation of a centrifuge, consult >> the documentation of the designers. Not a dictionary. Not your own head. >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-05-26 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fe7ecc8-0013-4f68-8282-93b3f64ca864@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459398 |
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:21:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:11:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such > >>>>>>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then > >>>>>>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of > >>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists > >>>>>>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The > >>>>>>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of > >>>>>>>>> the centrifugal force. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That is not a true statement. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To find out what the designers of > >>>>>>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about > >>>>>>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses > >>>>>>>> about what they used to design them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I HAVE. You have not. > >>>>>> Case closed. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It is a fictitious force, not a real force. > >>>> Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work > >>>> get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. > >>>> Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it > >>>> right. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Answer this: If centrifugal force doesn’t exist, what is the force they > >>> use to separate the U 235 from the rest of the U isotopes to make atomic > >>> bomb??? Also why do they called the machine they use to do the separation a centrifuge? > >>> > >> > >> Buoyancy. Oil floats on water in a jar because of buoyancy, which pushes > >> oil up. If you put oil and water in a centrifuge, the oil will be pushed > >> toward the center for the same reason. > > > > Hey fool, oil is already floating on top of water. > > And if the axis of the centrifuge tube is horizontal? Without rotation the oil will still floats to the top of the water. > > >I asked you: what force that separate the U325 from the rest of the > > U-isotopes. No answer on that. > > I answered. Buoyancy. Which is a centripetal force. You answered nothing. You made assertions. BTW, What is the Buoyancy force and what causes the Buoyancy force? > > > >> > >> They call it a centrifuge because it is a centrifuge. If you want to know > >> what principle governs the design and operation of a centrifuge, consult > >> the documentation of the designers. Not a dictionary. Not your own head. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2018-05-27 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ped5hp$onv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459408 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:21:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:11:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 1:05:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/18 7:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:37:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, here’s the definition for a centrifuge: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what?? I was not talking about a centrifuge. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the so called "centrifugal force"; there is no such >>>>>>>>>>>>> force, as its definitions specify. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto’s thinking is that if centrifugal force were not real, then >>>>>>>>>>>> physicists would contact dictionary editors to remove the mention of >>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force from the definition of centrifuge. And if physicists >>>>>>>>>>>> failed to do this, then this is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No moron, you claimed that the centrifugal force does not exist. The >>>>>>>>>>> designers of the centrifuge based their design on the existence of >>>>>>>>>>> the centrifugal force. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is not a true statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To find out what the designers of >>>>>>>>>> centrifuges base the design on, one must read what they wrote about >>>>>>>>>> their design. You have not. You have just relied on your own guesses >>>>>>>>>> about what they used to design them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why don’t you do that instead of making assertions as your argument? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I HAVE. You have not. >>>>>>>> Case closed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why did you say (assert) that centrifugal force doesn’t exist? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a fictitious force, not a real force. >>>>>> Designers of centrifuges know this and their descriptions of how they work >>>>>> get this right and do not make centrifugal force the underlying mechanism. >>>>>> Editors of common dictionaries do not get it right. You do not get it >>>>>> right. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Answer this: If centrifugal force doesn’t exist, what is the force they >>>>> use to separate the U 235 from the rest of the U isotopes to make atomic >>>>> bomb??? Also why do they called the machine they use to do the separation a centrifuge? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Buoyancy. Oil floats on water in a jar because of buoyancy, which pushes >>>> oil up. If you put oil and water in a centrifuge, the oil will be pushed >>>> toward the center for the same reason. >>> >>> Hey fool, oil is already floating on top of water. >> >> And if the axis of the centrifuge tube is horizontal? > > Without rotation the oil will still floats to the top of the water. >> >>> I asked you: what force that separate the U325 from the rest of the >>> U-isotopes. No answer on that. >> >> I answered. Buoyancy. Which is a centripetal force. > > You answered nothing. You made assertions. > BTW, What is the Buoyancy force and what causes the Buoyancy force? Fluid pressure causes buoyancy force. Liquids and gases are both fluids. Buoyancy force is what makes corks and boats float in water, what makes helium balloons rise, what makes ice on lakes stay on top. It’s in your book, see table of contents. > >>> >>>> >>>> They call it a centrifuge because it is a centrifuge. If you want to know >>>> what principle governs the design and operation of a centrifuge, consult >>>> the documentation of the designers. Not a dictionary. Not your own head. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web