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 | 2018-07-18 09:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 933 — 34 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? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 16:41 -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> - 2018-06-05 12:55 +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> - 2018-05-09 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? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-08 14:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 05:27 -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 06:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 06:50 -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> - 2018-06-05 14:01 +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> - 2018-05-13 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? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-01 06:25 -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> - 2018-06-01 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> - 2018-06-01 22:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-02 08:55 -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) - 2018-06-02 16:48 +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> - 2018-06-02 13:09 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-02 08:58 -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> - 2018-06-02 16:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 05:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 06:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +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> - 2018-06-03 08:27 -0700
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> - 2018-06-03 11:23 -0700
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> - 2018-06-03 11:33 -0700
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> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 06:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-04 10:29 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 10:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-04 13:58 -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> - 2018-06-04 14:53 +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> - 2018-06-04 09:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 14:15 -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> - 2018-06-04 22:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 15:23 -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> - 2018-06-04 15:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 16:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 17:01 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 00:49 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 06:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 07:25 -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> - 2018-06-05 10:15 -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> - 2018-06-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:25 -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> - 2018-06-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 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> - 2018-06-06 12:27 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 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> - 2018-06-06 13:52 +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) - 2018-06-06 18:07 +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> - 2018-06-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-06-04 22:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 16:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 08:21 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-06-05 13:24 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-06-05 15:13 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-06-05 16:09 +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> - 2018-06-04 22:16 +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> - 2018-06-04 14:53 +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> - 2018-06-01 12:27 -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) - 2018-05-29 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? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 06:46 -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> - 2018-06-05 14:01 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:50 -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> - 2018-06-05 16:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-04 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 00:16 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:12 -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> - 2018-06-05 16:23 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 13:56 -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> - 2018-06-05 22:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -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> - 2018-06-06 02:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 06:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 05:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:19 -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> - 2018-06-05 10:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:00 +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> - 2018-06-05 11:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 15:25 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 12:05 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 14:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:10 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 05:38 -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> - 2018-06-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 06:08 -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> - 2018-06-06 14:00 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-06 17:22 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 07:58 -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> - 2018-06-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 07:40 -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> - 2018-06-07 13:49 -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> - 2018-06-07 21:27 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 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> - 2018-06-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 06:17 -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> - 2018-06-06 14:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 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> - 2018-06-07 07:26 -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> - 2018-06-07 16:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 10:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:51 +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> - 2018-06-07 13:57 -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> - 2018-06-06 16:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 06:52 -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> - 2018-06-07 13:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:38 -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> - 2018-06-08 13:46 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 16:50 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-08 16:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 14:21 -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> - 2018-06-08 22:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 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> - 2018-06-09 13:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 08:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 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> - 2018-06-10 06:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 09:46 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 07:32 -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> - 2018-06-10 15:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 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> - 2018-06-10 19:18 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 04:52 -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> - 2018-06-11 05:01 -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> - 2018-06-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 14:04 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 13:58 -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> - 2018-06-10 21:19 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 08:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 08:48 -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> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 08:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-12 12:26 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 12:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 15:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-13 11:11 -0500
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 17:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 22:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 04:31 -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> - 2018-06-15 14:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 08:37 -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> - 2018-06-15 16:13 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 13:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Pasquale Broman <lqs@basq.ce> - 2018-06-13 20:43 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 13:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Pasquale Broman <lqs@basq.ce> - 2018-06-13 21:26 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 13:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 18:18 -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> - 2018-06-15 14:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 08:32 -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> - 2018-06-15 15:45 +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> - 2018-06-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 18:28 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 19:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 22:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 04:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 05:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 19:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 19:16 -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> - 2018-06-15 09:43 -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> - 2018-06-14 05:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-14 11:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 11:56 -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> - 2018-06-15 09:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-16 05:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:18 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-16 17:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 18:34 -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> - 2018-06-17 02:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 06:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 15:44 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 09:04 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 18:16 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-17 16:46 -0400
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> - 2018-06-17 14:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 09:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-18 09:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 17:26 +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> - 2018-06-18 17:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 14:04 -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> - 2018-06-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 14:58 -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> - 2018-06-18 22:43 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 22:47 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 08:10 -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> - 2018-06-20 16:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 12:12 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 17:18 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 21:48 -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> - 2018-06-21 09:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 05:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 09:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 09:17 -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) - 2018-06-17 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 07:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-17 14:40 +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> - 2018-06-17 17:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 11:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 09:08 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 09:18 -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) - 2018-06-17 17:23 +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> - 2018-06-17 18:14 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 13:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 22:23 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 06:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 15:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 08:57 -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) - 2018-06-18 17:39 +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> - 2018-06-18 17:59 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 11:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 12:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 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> - 2018-06-20 07:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:26 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:38 -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> - 2018-06-20 21:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 18:14 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 11:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:26 -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> - 2018-06-21 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> - 2018-06-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 14:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 06:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 06:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 07:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 21:25 -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) - 2018-06-23 04:42 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:12 -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) - 2018-06-24 00:20 +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> - 2018-06-21 22:31 +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> - 2018-06-21 10:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 14:34 -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> - 2018-06-21 22:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 22:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 02:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 00:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 01:19 -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> - 2018-06-30 06:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 07:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 06:31 -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> - 2018-07-02 13:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 07:56 -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> - 2018-07-02 15:07 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:04 -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> - 2018-07-02 08:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 09:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:10 -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> - 2018-07-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 08:28 -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> - 2018-07-02 16:07 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 11:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 11:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 15:50 -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> - 2018-07-02 22:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 16:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 06:45 -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) - 2018-07-03 14:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 14:00 -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) - 2018-07-03 21:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 14:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-07 15:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:32 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 14:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 17:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 20:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-04 06:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-04 09:30 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 06:42 -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> - 2018-07-05 09:40 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 15:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 14:21 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 12:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 15:31 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 16:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 21:07 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-07 09:37 -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) - 2018-07-07 17:33 +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> - 2018-07-06 20:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-06 14:21 -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> - 2018-07-07 00:51 +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) - 2018-07-07 17:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 06:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 06:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 07:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 08:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 08:31 -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> - 2018-07-05 09:34 -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> - 2018-07-03 22:06 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 17:50 -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> - 2018-07-05 17:36 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 15:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 05:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 05:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 02:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 15:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 09:13 -0700
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> - 2018-07-17 10:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 17:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 12:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 23:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 00:40 -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> - 2018-07-25 09:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 22:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 00:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 00:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 03:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 02:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 07:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 07:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 09:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 18:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 02:08 -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> - 2018-07-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 10:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-05 14:32 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 05:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-06 15:41 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 17:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 02:48 -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> - 2018-06-22 13:46 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 09:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-23 17:28 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 15:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 15:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 22:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 00:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 06:32 -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> - 2018-06-22 13:58 +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) - 2018-06-22 14:02 +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> - 2018-06-22 14:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 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> - 2018-06-22 16:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:31 -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> - 2018-06-23 14:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:34 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-23 14:55 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 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> - 2018-06-23 14:47 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-24 17:50 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 09:14 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 16:28 +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> - 2018-06-18 17:59 +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> - 2018-06-17 22:47 +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> - 2018-06-17 18:10 -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> - 2018-06-17 17:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:12 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-17 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> - 2018-06-17 13:33 +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> - 2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 12:18 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 07:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-12 12:16 -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> - 2018-06-11 16:30 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 17:26 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-10 21:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-10 17:47 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-10 21:51 +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> - 2018-06-10 18:56 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 06:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 10:42 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 08:57 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-11 18:04 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-11 16:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 01:47 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 06:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 15:10 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 07:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-12 18:20 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:37 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-11 12:37 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-12 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-12 12:19 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:50 -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> - 2018-06-10 19:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 05:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 12:31 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 13:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 17:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:39 -0700
OT: programming languages in physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-13 12:07 -0500
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 15:33 -0700
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-14 11:24 -0500
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocowak.br> - 2018-06-14 16:47 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-14 22:02 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-14 20:43 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-14 23:18 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-14 22:11 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-15 00:32 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-15 14:40 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:51 -0700
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-16 12:40 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 13:44 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 11:48 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 13:52 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-16 15:59 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 14:10 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-16 13:00 -0400
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 17:22 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 03:31 +0200
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-17 11:41 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-18 09:05 -0400
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-18 15:56 +0000
Re: OT: programming languages in physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 10:58 -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> - 2018-06-10 18:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 09:51 -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> - 2018-06-10 17:55 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-18 11:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 11:38 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-18 22:33 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 14:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 12:03 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-20 17:42 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 02:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-22 11:36 +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) - 2018-06-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 08:25 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-22 22:56 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 04:52 -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) - 2018-06-24 00:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-24 18:19 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-24 12:09 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-25 19:22 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-25 11:27 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-25 21:48 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 06:08 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-27 20:40 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 06:57 -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> - 2018-06-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 01:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 06:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 08:11 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 09:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 09:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 13:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 14:12 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 06:00 -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> - 2018-06-30 06:41 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-30 23:21 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 19:17 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 03:42 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-01 07:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 15:19 -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> - 2018-07-01 13:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-01 10:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 15:24 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-30 16:39 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-30 17:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-02 18:46 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 10:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 18:04 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-07-03 20:46 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-06-25 19:40 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:09 -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> - 2018-06-20 16:10 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 13:39 -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> - 2018-06-20 21:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 18:25 -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> - 2018-06-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 12:45 -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> - 2018-06-21 17:54 +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> - 2018-06-21 09:38 -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> - 2018-06-21 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> - 2018-06-21 11:22 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 21:02 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 06:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 08:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 08:58 -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> - 2018-06-22 16:12 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:35 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 14:33 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 16:55 -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) - 2018-06-24 00:35 +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> - 2018-06-24 13:17 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-24 07:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 09:24 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:07 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-25 11:10 -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> - 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 06:13 -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) - 2018-06-26 13:37 +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> - 2018-06-26 14:29 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 17:32 -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> - 2018-06-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-26 17:46 -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> - 2018-06-27 01:38 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-27 07:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 14:40 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 07:15 -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> - 2018-06-28 14:31 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 08:23 -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> - 2018-06-28 16:09 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-28 11:07 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 19:48 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 07:04 -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> - 2018-06-29 16:02 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 14:10 -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> - 2018-06-29 21:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 15:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 06:18 -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> - 2018-06-30 06:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 16:31 -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> - 2018-07-01 13:28 +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> - 2018-07-03 08:52 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 15:01 -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> - 2018-07-03 22:11 +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) - 2018-07-03 22:23 +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> - 2018-07-05 09:20 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-05 15:47 -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> - 2018-06-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 16:51 +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> - 2018-06-29 09:58 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-29 13:57 -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> - 2018-06-29 21:56 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 06:12 -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> - 2018-06-30 17:10 +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> - 2018-06-30 06:15 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 15:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 22:08 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 03:44 -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> - 2018-07-01 13:34 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-01 09:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 17:03 +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> - 2018-07-01 18:59 -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> - 2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-07-01 14:48 -0400
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) - 2018-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 10:42 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:05 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:10 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:34 -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> - 2018-06-21 14:19 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-22 07:03 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-20 18:31 -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> - 2018-06-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 12:49 -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> - 2018-06-21 17:54 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-20 13:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:02 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 10:20 -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> - 2018-06-21 10:26 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-21 14:17 -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> - 2018-06-21 14:37 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:26 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 06:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-10 19:22 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 13:44 -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> - 2018-06-10 18:22 -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> - 2018-06-08 13:30 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-07 11:09 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-07 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> - 2018-06-07 13:23 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-08 18:40 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 13:26 -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> - 2018-06-08 13:36 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-09 05:45 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:22 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-10 06:22 -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) - 2018-06-06 18:01 +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> - 2018-06-05 05:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-05 08:43 -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 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
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-02 21:31 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-02 14:03 -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) - 2018-06-02 22:16 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-07 20:35 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 13:13 -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> - 2018-06-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:29 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-08 18:43 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 14:43 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-23 13:55 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:53 -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) - 2018-06-24 00:28 +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> - 2018-06-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-18 21:29 +0200
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-19 17:35 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 15:13 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 11:48 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 11:46 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 11:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-19 16:12 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 11:47 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 12:28 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 14:10 -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> - 2018-06-19 22:44 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-19 21:23 -0400
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 15:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:21 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 15:59 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 16:23 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 16:29 -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> - 2018-06-20 01:39 +0000
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:49 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:51 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:53 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 09:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 09:39 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 09:54 -0700
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-07-18 09:35 -0700
Page 14 of 47 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 47 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c313135-3b03-42fb-8094-8ebb4ff01e65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460381 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 6/4/2018 7:53 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Vaughn Fleck wrote: > >> Your theory has to be a subset of Relativity, committing the very same > >> mistakes. You provide no mechanism, reason or cause, for which the E- > >> Matrix should deform its shape elasticly. > > > > No way relativity (SR/GR) are subsets of my theory IRT. > > > So if GR and SR are subsets of your theory, that means that your theory > must agree with everything that GR and SR have to say. Just that your > theory has something additional to say that’s not part of GR/SR. IRT and DTG agree with everything that GR/SR have too say. In addition IRT eliminated all the paradoxes of SRT and DTG provided mechanism for gravity for the cause of gravity. > > So since you and I both agree that GR and SR are correct, because you > state GR/SR are subsets of your theory, we can skip that and we can > concentrate on all the new stuff you have come up with and see what, if > any, value it has. We can concentrate the cause of gravity between the earth and the moon. > > (aside: From your postings here, it's rather obvious that your theory > does NOT agree with GR/SR, therefore GR/SR actually can not be subsets > of your theory at all! Obviously a theory that disagrees with your > theory cannot be a subset of your theory!) My theory provides different explanation for the various equations of SRT/GRT and more. Therefore SRT andGRT are subsets of my theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf62tt$1q8n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460345 |
kenseto wrote: >> Your theory has to be a subset of Relativity, committing the very same >> mistakes. You provide no mechanism, reason or cause, for which the E- >> Matrix should deform its shape elasticly. > > No way relativity (SR/GR) are subsets of my theory IRT. One way or another, you provide no mechanism. This universe is "mechanical" based. Be that electronic, quantum and so on. That's the way it is, and your theory cannot possibly change that. You have work to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <848aef6f-a09b-4e56-92b9-9ef088ec3460@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460391 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-4, Vaughn Fleck wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> Your theory has to be a subset of Relativity, committing the very same > >> mistakes. You provide no mechanism, reason or cause, for which the E- > >> Matrix should deform its shape elasticly. > > > > No way relativity (SR/GR) are subsets of my theory IRT. > > One way or another, you provide no mechanism. This universe is > "mechanical" based. I certainly provided a mechanism for gravity. You made assertion without reading my paper. > Be that electronic, quantum and so on. That's the way > it is, and your theory cannot possibly change that. You have work to do. So how is mt theory contradict with electronic and quantum? Again read my papers or book before you shoot your mouth off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf69a3$504$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460404 |
kenseto wrote: >> Be that electronic, quantum and so on. That's the way it is, and your >> theory cannot possibly change that. You have work to do. > > So how is mt theory contradict with electronic and quantum? Again read > my papers or book before you shoot your mouth off. I already did, twice. No property of E-Matrix, nor mechanism, cause or reason is presented, that would demand the elasticity of such construct, when it comes in contact with mass objects. Try again, but harder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48c80989-bacc-49be-8fe0-7172b0fbb31a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460406 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-4, Vaughn Fleck wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> Be that electronic, quantum and so on. That's the way it is, and your > >> theory cannot possibly change that. You have work to do. > > > > So how is mt theory contradict with electronic and quantum? Again read > > my papers or book before you shoot your mouth off. > > I already did, twice. No property of E-Matrix, nor mechanism, cause or > reason is presented, that would demand the elasticity of such construct, > when it comes in contact with mass objects. Try again, but harder. I can’t help you if you don’t read my papers or my book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf6cjf$duf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460417 |
kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:13:11 AM UTC-4, Vaughn Fleck wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> >> >> Be that electronic, quantum and so on. That's the way it is, and >> >> your theory cannot possibly change that. You have work to do. >> > >> > So how is mt theory contradict with electronic and quantum? Again >> > read my papers or book before you shoot your mouth off. >> >> I already did, twice. No property of E-Matrix, nor mechanism, cause or >> reason is presented, that would demand the elasticity of such >> construct, >> when it comes in contact with mass objects. Try again, but harder. > > I can’t help you if you don’t read my papers or my book. They want you believing in Aliens and UFO's, so you also believe in E- Matrices and moon landing. There are no conclusive evidences for things like that, but all to the contrary. Mixed together, facts and fiction, hard pulling them apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf4doc$16h3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460232 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 4:08:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 6/3/2018 3:04 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:59:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> Question: What causes the centripetal force between the earth and the moon? >>>> >>>> Gravity. >>> >>> What causes gravity between the earth and the moon? >>> Let me get this right: >>> You asserted: >> >> He stated facts, not assertions. >> >>> 1. Orbital motion is due to centripetal acceleration. >> >> Correct. >> >>> 2. Centripetal acceleration is caused by centripetal force. >> >> Correct. >> >>> 3. Centripetal force is gravity. >> >> In the case of the earth and moon, correct. If whirling a stone around >> your head, it's the force in the rope/string. >> >>> 4. There is no centrifugal force. >> It is a fictitious force, yes. > > Why it is a fictitious force? When you stand in a Merry-Go-Around the > centrifugal force try to throw you off it. > >> >>> 5. So what causes gravity between the earth and the moon? >> >> Why did you go from centripetal force to the cause of gravity? > > Because you said centripetal force is gravity. Let me ask you: what is > the cause of centripetal force between the earth and the moon? > >> If you >> believe in Einstein’s GR, gravity is the curvature of space-time. > > I don’t believe in Einstein. His curvature of space-time is a > mathematical description of the path of the moon orbiting the earth. I > want to know what is the cause of gravity....what causes the earth attracting the moon? > >> If you >> don't, there isn't an answer to the cause, but it is well known how it >> behaves. It behaves as F=GMm/r^2, regardless of its cause and that's all >> that matters when calculating the moon’s orbit. > > So why do you ignore that I have the cause of gravity? Why don’t you > comment on it? It is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf There’s a very simple reason. Physicists will ignore any claims that you have the cause of gravity until you can prove it is the cause of gravity. And the only way you can prove it is the cause of gravity is if you can do calculations with your cause, and those calculations match observation. That is the required proof of your claim. Until you can provide that proof, your claim isn’t worth attention. > >> >>>>> If there is no centrifugal force why did Newton used it to calculate >>>>> the orbit of the moon? >>>>> >>>> >>>> He didn’t. >>> >>> I read yesterday that they use the centrifugal force to compute the >>> orbital period. I can dig out the link if you want me to. >> >> Still, Newton didn't use centrifugal force to calculate orbits. In fact >> he proved no such force was necessary. Certainly you can use a >> fictitious force as a shortcut if it makes calculations easier. > > Google it: you’ll find that they use the centrifugal force to calculate > the orbiting period of a satellite. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf3jq4$1mq0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460172 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:59:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:38:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 12:16:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 9:09:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:48:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 3:51:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I am saying that the EM attractive gravitational force causes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centripetal acceleration. That in combination with the repulsive effect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force exists between the interacting objects causes the stable orbiting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton’s second law says that any acceleration is due to a (net) force in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the direction of the acceleration and given by F=ma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the divergent structure of theE-matrix. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations to the test and make the calculations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never provide any calculations to what you said....in fact you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that you don’t do math. I have a theory based on the existence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of absolute motion in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new experiments to detect absolute motion and did example calculations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the following link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken the calculations of standard physics theories are splattered all over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the place, though they are not reproduced here because Usenet is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbook. You haven’t managed to read anything where the standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations have ALREADY been done, but other people have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the ONLY calculations from your theory are the ones you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce and you haven’t produced any. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the statement still stands: calculations from standard physics are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALREADY done, calculations from your theory are NOT done at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, I have a better understand physics than you. You claimed that >>>>>>>>>>>>> centripetal acceleration is a force. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not. You cannot read. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes you did >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quote me, you senile fart. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ken Seto: >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is the attractive force of gravity between the interacting objects >>>>>>>>>>>> causes the centripetal acceleration. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bodkin: >>>>>>>>>>> Is the attractive force of gravity toward the center? Yes it is. Then it is >>>>>>>>>>> a centripetal force. Because that’s what centripetal MEANS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ken Seto: >>>>>>>>>> No there is an centripetal acceleration toward the center. that >>>>>>>>>> acceleration is caused by the attraction aspect of gravity. You are >>>>>>>>>> saying that gravity and CP force is the same. It is not....There is no CP force. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now will you admit that you are senile and full of shit???? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See? You cannot read. Nothing quoted above says or implies that centripetal >>>>>>>> acceleration is a force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You said: Then it is a centripetal force. >>>>>> >>>>>> I said: “Is the attractive force of gravity toward the center? Yes it is. >>>>>> Then it is a centripetal force. Because that’s what centripetal MEANS.” >>>>>> >>>>>> This does not say that a centripetal acceleration is a force. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You said that there is a centripetal force (CP) and that CP causes CP >>>>> acceleration. Also you said that there is no centrifugal force and that >>>>> centrifugal force is fictitious. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I did say that a centripetal force causes centripetal acceleration, and >>>> that centrifugal force is fictitious, yes. All that is correct. >>> >>> Question: What causes the centripetal force between the earth and the moon? >> >> Gravity. > > What causes gravity between the earth and the moon? > Let me get this right: > You asserted: > 1. Orbital motion is due to centripetal acceleration. > 2. Centripetal acceleration is caused by centripetal force. Yes > 3. Centripetal force is gravity. Only in some cases. In the case of a string whirling a rock around your head, the centripetal force is string tension. In the case of an atom, the centripetal force is electrostatic attraction. > 4. There is no centrifugal force. > 5. So what causes gravity between the earth and the moon? A field. Kind of like a field is responsible for two opposite magnetic poles to attract. > >> >>> If there is no centrifugal force why did Newton used it to calculate >>> the orbit of the moon? >>> >> >> He didn’t. > > I read yesterday that they use the centrifugal force to compute the > orbital period. I can dig out the link if you want me to. > “They” is not Newton. Newton is dead. You probably read some poorly written trash article written by a journalist, not a scientist. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac77503c-7487-42af-8dc0-8dfb0f10ed9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459963 |
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:38:41 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > That doesn’t say that there is a centripetal or centrifugal force. > > > It says that CP or CF accelerations are caused by one of the > > > fundamental forces. Specifically the CP acceleration is caused > > > by the attractive force of gravity and gravity is a combination > > > of an attractive EM force in combination with the repulsive > > > effect of the interacting objects are confined to follow > > > the divergent structure of theE-matrix. > > > > ken, you keep proclaiming this like repetition is truth, > > but you have provided zero evidence. In fact you have provided > > zero testable predictions. I asked you before, put your > > equations to the test and make the calculations. > > You never provide any calculations to what you said... >.in fact you admitted that you don’t do math. i said I have gotten weak in calculus because I don't use it often enough, but I never said I don't do math. You may have me confused with someone else. > I have a theory based on the existence of absolute motion > in a structured aether called the E-matrix. I proposed new > experiments to detect absolute motion and did example > calculations. in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf I just looked at that paper yet again. sigh. There is one calculation (sort of) in that paper. from Ken's paper: ================================start> The predictions for SC = 100 meters between the source and the photographic paper holder are calculated as follows: The distance traced out by the laser on the photographic paper due to the absolute motion of the photographic paper = AC = L100. The time interval required for light from S to traverse the distance SA is: T100 = SQRT( ((L100)^2 + 100^2) / c^2 ). The time interval (T100) is also the time interval required by the laser to trace out the distance L100 on the photographic paper. This time interval (T100) is also the time interval required by the laser to trace out the length AC on the photographic paper. Therefore the absolute motion of the photographic paper = Va = V100 = (L100 * c) / SQRT( (L00)^2 + 100^2 ) The following Table 5.1 shows some assumed values of L100 along with the corresponding values of V100. The assumed values of L100 and the corresponding values of V100 can be plotted in a graph. Therefore any assumed value of V100 will give a predicted value for L100 from the graph. ================================<end I'll look again. But That is still not the calculation we are talking about. > > > > > If you cannot even calculate the lunar orbit with your theory > > then you haven’t even gotten past step ONE. > > You do calculations with your theory then I will do my calculations. > That would be good practice for me. Don't know when I'll have the time but soon On order of days. Meanwhile you should get moving one your version. Ed This is going to be fun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pejuts$qvk$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #459705 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >That's right. There is no such thing as centripetal or centrifugal >forces. There are centripetal and centrifugal accelerations and both are >caused by the attractive or repulsive EM force. Stupid Ken, you just contradicted yourself. "No such thing" as those forces but then you say they are caused by EM forces? Regardless, the _definition_ of force is F=m*a. If there is a mass accelerating, then there is a force causing the acceleration. Period. p.s. Ken, have you looked up "centrifugal force" in a dictionary yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdumbc$pcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458659 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>> >>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>> of reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>> >>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>> >>>> Motion is not a force. >>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>> and away from the center. >>> >>> >>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >> >> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >> motion. High school basics. > > Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > >> >> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > > You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>> single time. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99cefdb0-6303-4bcd-b972-7afe913bf416@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458672 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>>>> the basics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>>>> of reference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>>>> > >>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Motion is not a force. > >>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >>>> and away from the center. > >>> > >>> > >>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > >> > >> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of > >> motion. High school basics. > > > > Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. > > Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. > > > > >> > >> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > > > > You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. > > Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It > is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at > your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read > Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a > lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you > and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own > head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on > >>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every > >>>>>> single time. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdusn8$15st$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458681 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>>>> of reference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Motion is not a force. >>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>>>> and away from the center. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >>>> >>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >>>> motion. High school basics. >>> >>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. >> >> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > > Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to > some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your textbook. Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what feeds your mental condition? >> >>> >>>> >>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>> >>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. >> >> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It >> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at >> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read >> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a >> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you >> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own >> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>>>> single time. >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c33f1d9-be9f-40ba-8414-6c81f4c6dd55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458691 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>>>>>> the basics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>>>>>> of reference. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Motion is not a force. > >>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >>>>>> and away from the center. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > >>>> > >>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of > >>>> motion. High school basics. > >>> > >>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. > >> > >> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > > > > Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to > > some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. > > A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at > least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit. > > You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and > what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your > textbook. > > Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, > you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what > feeds your mental condition? > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > >>> > >>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. > >> > >> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It > >> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at > >> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read > >> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a > >> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you > >> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own > >> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on > >>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every > >>>>>>>> single time. > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdv12p$1e0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458704 |
On 5/21/18 12:18 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>>>>>> of reference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Motion is not a force. >>>>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>>>>>> and away from the center. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >>>>>> motion. High school basics. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. >>>> >>>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. >>> >>> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to >>> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. >> >> A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at >> least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. > > CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit. I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed to maintain motion. That's Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum. Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time. This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting inertially (no forces). If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts. GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS. > > >> >> You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and >> what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your >> textbook. >> >> Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, >> you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what >> feeds your mental condition? >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>>>> >>>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. >>>> >>>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It >>>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at >>>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read >>>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a >>>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you >>>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own >>>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>>>>>> single time. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5383bdb-d0db-40d5-a7f7-a38e11da2794@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458718 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:53:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/21/18 12:18 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>>>>>>>> the basics. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>>>>>>>> of reference. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>>>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Motion is not a force. > >>>>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >>>>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >>>>>>>> and away from the center. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of > >>>>>> motion. High school basics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. > >>>> > >>>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. > >>> > >>> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to > >>> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. > >> > >> A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at > >> least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. > > > > CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit. > > I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get > shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to > maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to > initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the > statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed > to maintain motion. That’s Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum. Moron you need a force to initiate and to maintain curved tangential motion. The rest of your rambling is ignored. It is irrelevant to our discussion. > > Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential > motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases > but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a > string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. > Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate > the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do > not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a > package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the > basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just > dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The > parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the > train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling > there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that > tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket > will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the > arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time. > > This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from > outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the > comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on > it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a > CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied > here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting > inertially (no forces). > > If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained > in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and > you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to > tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts. > > GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS. > > > > > > >> > >> You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and > >> what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your > >> textbook. > >> > >> Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, > >> you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what > >> feeds your mental condition? > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. > >>>> > >>>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It > >>>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at > >>>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read > >>>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a > >>>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you > >>>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own > >>>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on > >>>>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every > >>>>>>>>>> single time. > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdvh5s$aja$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458759 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:53:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/21/18 12:18 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> educated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>>>>>>>> of reference. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>>>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Motion is not a force. >>>>>>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>>>>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>>>>>>>> and away from the center. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >>>>>>>> motion. High school basics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to >>>>> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid. >>>> >>>> A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at >>>> least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. >>> >>> CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force >>> to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the >>> CP force provides a stable orbit. >> >> I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get >> shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to >> maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to >> initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the >> statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed >> to maintain motion. That’s Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum. > > Moron you need a force to initiate and to maintain curved tangential motion. Ah so you’ve regressed. The tweaked language you wrote earlier was better. Now back to ground zero. > The rest of your rambling is ignored. It is irrelevant to our discussion. >> >> Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential >> motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases >> but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a >> string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. >> Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate >> the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do >> not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a >> package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the >> basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just >> dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The >> parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the >> train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling >> there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that >> tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket >> will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the >> arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time. >> >> This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from >> outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the >> comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on >> it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a >> CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied >> here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting >> inertially (no forces). >> >> If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained >> in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and >> you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to >> tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts. >> >> GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and >>>> what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your >>>> textbook. >>>> >>>> Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself, >>>> you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what >>>> feeds your mental condition? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >>>>>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It >>>>>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at >>>>>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read >>>>>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a >>>>>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you >>>>>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own >>>>>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>>>>>>>> single time. >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fb1dd3d-aa17-4ec1-b0fe-5f35ab316798@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458594 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>> the basics. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>> > >>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>> of reference. > >>>> > >>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>> > >>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> > >> Motion is not a force. > >> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >> and away from the center. > > > > > > Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > > Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of > motion. High school basics. Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity. > > As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > your own without educating yourself in the subject. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on > >>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every > >>>> single time. > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdumbd$pcb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458666 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated >>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education >>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that >>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t >>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education >>>>>>>>> about gravity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a >>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I >>>>>>>> described in the following link: >>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in >>>>>>> the basics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity >>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about >>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with >>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been >>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, >>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from >>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No comment? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From Wikipedia: >>>>>> >>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also >>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of >>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame >>>>>> of reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. >>>>> >>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of >>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>> >>>> Motion is not a force. >>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal >>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center >>>> and away from the center. >>> >>> >>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. >> >> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of >> motion. High school basics. > > Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. > High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.” > All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity. > >> >> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on >> your own without educating yourself in the subject. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on >>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every >>>>>> single time. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e431d24-64c3-4c21-a67f-8f3ba84d6c89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458673 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>>>> about gravity... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that > >>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t > >>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about > >>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education > >>>>>>>>> about gravity. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a > >>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I > >>>>>>>> described in the following link: > >>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in > >>>>>>> the basics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity > >>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about > >>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with > >>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially, > >>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from > >>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No comment? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From Wikipedia: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also > >>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of > >>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame > >>>>>> of reference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. > >>>>> > >>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of > >>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component. > >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Motion is not a force. > >>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal > >>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center > >>>> and away from the center. > >>> > >>> > >>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force. > >> > >> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of > >> motion. High school basics. > > > > Moron, stable orbiting motion requires a force. > > A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object. > > > High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. > > Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the > force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.” I was repeating what you said....I should have say that a force is required to initiate and maintain orbiting motion. > > > All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity. > > > >> > >> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on > >> your own without educating yourself in the subject. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on > >>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every > >>>>>> single time. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 47 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 47 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web