Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460007 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 06:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-04 14:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 56 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf8ou7$b9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460502 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:27:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:22:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:22:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:25:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:05:21 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:50:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can’t find what you claimed to have read? How frustrating for you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The video in the following link show how the orbital period is >>>>>>>>>>>> calculated using the centrifugal force and Newton’s gravitational >>>>>>>>>>>> equation: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Shows how to calculate the orbital period of a Satellite. The >>>>>>>>>>>> equation for orbital period is derived from Newton's second law >>>>>>>>>>>> and Newton's Law of universal gravitation. You can see a listing >>>>>>>>>>>> of all my videos at http://www.stepbystepscience.com " >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which one video? >>>>>>>>>>> That site is so annoying, I did not bother to drill down very far. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sigh....click on the link PHYSICS, then clock on the link calculating >>>>>>>>>> the orbital period. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sigh, You skipped a step, but at least you gave the name. >>>>>>>>> Easier would have been: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrItoUDA4E >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So note: >>>>>>>>> There is no tangential force or tangential acceleration used or mentioned. >>>>>>>>> There is no centrifugal force mentioned. >>>>>>>>> He does put the Gravity force vector in the wrong place. >>>>>>>>> He does the specific case of a circular orbit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I'm confused. How was this supposed to help >>>>>>>>> your argument that Newtonian gravity is wrong? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sigh....I never say that Newtonian gravity is wrong. I said that >>>>>>>> Newtonian gravity is a composite force. It is composed of: >>>>>>>> 1. An attractive EM force derived from that the moon and the earth are >>>>>>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>> 2. A repulsive effect exists between the earth and the moon because they >>>>>>>> are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>> 3. Newtonian Gravity is the sum of the above opposing forces. These >>>>>>>> opposing forces produce the needed centripetal acceleration and the >>>>>>>> tangential acceleration between the earth and the moon to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>> 4. Read my paper before you shoot off your mouth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wasted enough time reading that undergrad level draft >>>>>>> of a grade D paper. I'll not waste time going through it again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You make this claim which contradicts how Newton framed gravity. >>>>>>> Newton needed no tangential factors (force, acceleration). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, I ask you simple to show how these forces work. >>>>>>> Do the Math. Put it in a revised paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sadly I know you won't do it. >>>>>>> Oh well. your loss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, can you calculate the tangential acceleration of the moon around the >>>>>> earth? Looking for a number with units. I say it has an average value of 0 >>>>>> m/s^2. What number do you calculate? >>>>> >>>>> How could it has 0m/s^2 when it is continually go around the orbit in the >>>>> tangential direction? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You know the difference between speed and acceleration? >>> >>> You don’t know, that’s why you ask the question? I suggest that you look >>> it up in your text book. >>> >>>> >>>> You know that things can “go” without accelerating, right? >>> >>> Idiot....not in a circular motion. Every point in orbit the object is >>> experiencing instant acceleration. That’s why the object is constantly >>> change direction. Gee you are stupid. >>> >> >> Ken, back to basics. In 2D motion, you break down motions, accelerations, >> and forces into orthogonal components. For example, if you throw a >> baseball, it will have motion both horizontally and vertically. For the >> vertical motion, there is a nonzero acceleration. That is due to the >> vertical force of gravity near the surface of the earth. But horizontally, >> even though there is motion, there is no force required to sustain the >> horizontal motion, and indeed there is no horizontal acceleration. >> >> Likewise in a circular orbit, there are radial and tangential components of >> the motion. > > Bingo! there are two components for circular motion There are always two components in 2D motion. Notice attractive and repulsive forces belong to the same component. > >> The radial component has an acceleration toward the center just >> by virtue of traveling in a circle. > > The tangential acceleration component prevent the object (he moon) from > crashing into the earth. > >> That is the centripetal acceleration >> and there is a centripetal force that causes that. But tangentially there >> is no force required to sustain that motion, and indeed there is no >> tangential acceleration. > > Assertion is not a valid argument. Without tangential acceleration the > moon will simply crash into the earth. Sorry, Ken, you’re the one making assertions counter to HS physics. > >> High school physics, Ken. High school. >> > > Yes that’s high school physics.....learn it. > It’s simple to check. Shall we look at some HS physics books? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf97t5$qge$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #460502 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>That is the centripetal acceleration >> and there is a centripetal force that causes that. But tangentially there >> is no force required to sustain that motion, and indeed there is no >> tangential acceleration. >Assertion is not a valid argument. So why do you keep asserting that: > Without tangential acceleration the moon > will simply crash into the earth. >> High school physics, Ken. High school. >Yes that's high school physics.....learn it. Unfortunately, you have forgotten all of yours. Otherwise you wouldn't be here making all kinds of false assertions like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf72fu$1n5j$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460465 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:22:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:25:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:05:21 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:50:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you can’t find what you claimed to have read? How frustrating for you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The video in the following link show how the orbital period is >>>>>>>> calculated using the centrifugal force and Newton’s gravitational >>>>>>>> equation: >>>>>>>> "Shows how to calculate the orbital period of a Satellite. The >>>>>>>> equation for orbital period is derived from Newton's second law >>>>>>>> and Newton's Law of universal gravitation. You can see a listing >>>>>>>> of all my videos at http://www.stepbystepscience.com " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which one video? >>>>>>> That site is so annoying, I did not bother to drill down very far. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sigh....click on the link PHYSICS, then clock on the link calculating >>>>>> the orbital period. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh, You skipped a step, but at least you gave the name. >>>>> Easier would have been: >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrItoUDA4E >>>>> >>>>> So note: >>>>> There is no tangential force or tangential acceleration used or mentioned. >>>>> There is no centrifugal force mentioned. >>>>> He does put the Gravity force vector in the wrong place. >>>>> He does the specific case of a circular orbit. >>>>> >>>>> So I'm confused. How was this supposed to help >>>>> your argument that Newtonian gravity is wrong? >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Sigh....I never say that Newtonian gravity is wrong. I said that >>>> Newtonian gravity is a composite force. It is composed of: >>>> 1. An attractive EM force derived from that the moon and the earth are >>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix. >>>> 2. A repulsive effect exists between the earth and the moon because they >>>> are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>> 3. Newtonian Gravity is the sum of the above opposing forces. These >>>> opposing forces produce the needed centripetal acceleration and the >>>> tangential acceleration between the earth and the moon to maintain a stable orbit. >>>> 4. Read my paper before you shoot off your mouth. >>> >>> I wasted enough time reading that undergrad level draft >>> of a grade D paper. I'll not waste time going through it again. >>> >>> You make this claim which contradicts how Newton framed gravity. >>> Newton needed no tangential factors (force, acceleration). >>> >>> Again, I ask you simple to show how these forces work. >>> Do the Math. Put it in a revised paper. >>> >>> Sadly I know you won't do it. >>> Oh well. your loss. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> Ken, can you calculate the tangential acceleration of the moon around the >> earth? Looking for a number with units. I say it has an average value of 0 >> m/s^2. What number do you calculate? > > How could it has 0m/s^2 when it is continually go around the orbit in the > tangential direction? > So what’s your calculated tangential acceleration for the moon? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39b318b4-5be2-41e4-936a-cd85011e0a67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460430 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:25:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:05:21 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:50:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So you can’t find what you claimed to have read? How frustrating for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > The video in the following link show how the orbital period is > > > > > > calculated using the centrifugal force and Newton’s gravitational > > > > > > equation: > > > > > > "Shows how to calculate the orbital period of a Satellite. The > > > > > > equation for orbital period is derived from Newton's second law > > > > > > and Newton's Law of universal gravitation. You can see a listing > > > > > > of all my videos at http://www.stepbystepscience.com " > > > > > > > > > > Which one video? > > > > > That site is so annoying, I did not bother to drill down very far. > > > > > > > > Sigh....click on the link PHYSICS, then clock on the link calculating the orbital period. > > > > > > Sigh, You skipped a step, but at least you gave the name. > > > Easier would have been: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrItoUDA4E > > > > > > So note: > > > There is no tangential force or tangential acceleration used or mentioned. > > > There is no centrifugal force mentioned. > > > He does put the Gravity force vector in the wrong place. > > > He does the specific case of a circular orbit. > > > > > > So I'm confused. How was this supposed to help > > > your argument that Newtonian gravity is wrong? > > > > > > Ed > > > > Sigh....I never say that Newtonian gravity is wrong. I said that Newtonian gravity is a composite force. It is composed of: > > 1. An attractive EM force derived from that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix. > > 2. A repulsive effect exists between the earth and the moon because they are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > > 3. Newtonian Gravity is the sum of the above opposing forces. These opposing forces produce the needed centripetal acceleration and the tangential acceleration between the earth and the moon to maintain a stable orbit. > > 4. Read my paper before you shoot off your mouth. > > I wasted enough time reading that undergrad level draft > of a grade D paper. I’ll not waste time going through it again. Then fuck off. I didn’t force you to read it. > > You make this claim which contradicts how Newton framed gravity. > Newton needed no tangential factors (force, acceleration). Hey moron, how many time do I have to tell you that I didn’t say Newton was wrong. I said Newton’s gravity force is a composite force. > > Again, I ask you simple to show how these forces work. > Do the Math. Put it in a revised paper. You don’t understand math and you want me to do math for you? I have math in my paper and in my book so why don’t you tell me what is wrong with it? > > Sadly I know you won’t do it. > Oh well. your loss. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5458cd46-6806-4099-82a3-5e4abb0f970a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460390 |
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 9:05:21 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:50:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:30:20 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:15:04 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:54:00 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > So you can’t find what you claimed to have read? How frustrating for you. > > > > > > > > The video in the following link show how the orbital period is > > > > calculated using the centrifugal force and Newton’s gravitational > > > > equation: > > > > "Shows how to calculate the orbital period of a Satellite. The > > > > equation for orbital period is derived from Newton's second law > > > > and Newton's Law of universal gravitation. You can see a listing > > > > of all my videos at http://www.stepbystepscience.com " > > > > > > Which one video? > > > That site is so annoying, I did not bother to drill down very far. > > > > Sigh....click on the link PHYSICS, then clock on the link calculating the orbital period. > > Sigh, You skipped a step, but at least you gave the name. > Easier would have been: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrItoUDA4E > > So note: > There is no tangential force or tangential acceleration used or mentioned. Sigh....the centrifugal force acting on the moon is the tangential force and this tangential force produces the tangential acceleration. > There is no centrifugal force mentioned. The fact that the moon is orbiting the earth is the result of centrifugal force. > He does put the Gravity force vector in the wrong place. > He does the specific case of a circular orbit. > > So I'm confused. How was this supposed to help > your argument that Newtonian gravity is wrong? I never said that Newtonian gravity is wrong. I said that Newtonian gravity is a composite force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf4ftb$1928$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460317 |
kenseto wrote: >> So you can’t find what you claimed to have read? How frustrating for >> you. > > The video in the following link show how the orbital period is > calculated using the centrifugal force and Newton’s gravitational > equation: > "Shows how to calculate the orbital period of a Satellite. The equation > for orbital period is derived from Newton's second law and Newton's Law > of universal gravitation. You can see a listing of all my videos at > http://www.stepbystepscience.com " Your theory has to be a subset of Relativity, committing the very same mistakes. You provide no mechanism, reason or cause, for which the E- Matrix should deform its shape elasticly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a596f50f-086b-4034-b3d0-19622068ac61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460332 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Vaughn Fleck wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> So you can’t find what you claimed to have read? How frustrating for > >> you. > > > > The video in the following link show how the orbital period is > > calculated using the centrifugal force and Newton’s gravitational > > equation: > > "Shows how to calculate the orbital period of a Satellite. The equation > > for orbital period is derived from Newton's second law and Newton's Law > > of universal gravitation. You can see a listing of all my videos at > > http://www.stepbystepscience.com " > > Your theory has to be a subset of Relativity, committing the very same > mistakes. You provide no mechanism, reason or cause, for which the E- > Matrix should deform its shape elasticly. No way relativity (SR/GR) are subsets of my theory IRT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 08:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf5v8d$q7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460345 |
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. 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. (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!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web