Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460339 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-04 16:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 08:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 565 — 22 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> - 2018-06-04 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
Page 3 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 29 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfbrbt$1hpo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460606 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 12:08:38 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:38:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:45:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2018 5:12 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:05:47 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2018 11:22 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:16:28 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 7:31 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A satellite must have Centripetal acceleration toward the center of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's called "gravity". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in addition it must also have tangential acceleration away from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> center of the earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can it be tangential if it's away from the center of the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make up your mind. Is it tangential or is it away from the center of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The combination of these accelerations will give stable orbit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton combined these two accelerations and call it gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Newton only had gravity. Read his works if you don't believe me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Tangential acceleration away from the center of the earth" is babbling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense, which Newton didn't use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sigh Newton’s gravity is a composite force. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG! Newton's gravity is F = GMm/r^2. Notice how there is a single >>>>>>>>>>>> term on the right side? There is no "+" symbol to indicate where two >>>>>>>>>>>> forces are added, nor a "-" symbol where two forces are subtracted. ONE >>>>>>>>>>>> TERM, and definitely NOT a composite force. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey idiot....if Newton gravity is not a composite force the moon will >>>>>>>>>>> not be maintain a table orbit. Gee you are stupid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken, for the millionth time, Newton PROVED that only a single force >>>>>>>>>> (gravity) was needed for a stable orbit. You have not disproved his >>>>>>>>>> proof, all you can do is assert that there must be a composite force. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the billions of time, Newton’s gravity force is not single force. It >>>>>>>>> is a composite force, that’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Either PROVE Newton wrong (and get a ticket to Sweden!) or admit that >>>>>>>>>> you are wrong. Of course, you'll do neither, just falsely claim that >>>>>>>>>> there is a composite force causing the moon to orbit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn’t say that Newton was wrong. I said that he didn’t know that his >>>>>>>>> gravity force is composed of an attractive EM force and a repulsive >>>>>>>>> effect between the earth and the moon. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory provides a mechanical explanation of gravity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you show your theory as falsifiable? Where is your experimental >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My theory is falsifiable if the experiments I proposed failed to >>>>>>>>>>> find absolute motion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So no experiments have been done yet? So all you have is a hypothesis? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.The tangential acceleration is caused by the centrifugal force >>>>>>>>>>>>> exerts on the orbiting object. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh good grief. You are getting wronger and wronger. The centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>> (pseudo)force is OUTWARD, AWAY from the center. You yourself commented >>>>>>>>>>>> about being thrown off a merry-go-round by the centrifugal force. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey idiot, the centrifugal force is not (pseudo) in my theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, your theory is wrong, then! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you explain why centrifugal force is (pseudo)? Don't just make assertion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It causes tangential acceleration for a satellite and that’s why it is >>>>>>>>>>> able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What? Tangential acceleration? The moon is orbiting the earth faster and >>>>>>>>>> faster??? I thought it was a constant ~29.5 days! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No idiot...tangential acceleration is what causes the moon in a circular orbit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also if you use the centrifugal pseudoforce to explain how centrifuges >>>>>>>>>>>> work, they work because the centrifugal force forces the dense/heavy >>>>>>>>>>>> matter OUTWARD and the lighter/less dense matter gets displaced inward. >>>>>>>>>>>> NOT TANGENTIALLY. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron....not just OUTWARD also a circular motion around the center of >>>>>>>>>>> rotation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not outward. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No not just outward, the moon must also experiencing a tangential >>>>>>>>> acceleration to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are a zillion Youtube videos of amusement park rides with names >>>>>>>>>> like the Gravitron or Roundup that are basically centrifuges with people >>>>>>>>>> forced against the wall. They are forced against the wall, they don't >>>>>>>>>> slide around the inside faster and faster!!! >>>>>>>>>> Here is just one video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0H7TYzcMaY >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some of them tilt so that the riders are upside down for part of the >>>>>>>>>> ride (forced UPWARD). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you agree that it is the centrifugal force that forces the person >>>>>>>>> against the wall....right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The centripetal acceleration is caused by the attractive EM force >>>>>>>>>>>>> derived from the earth and the moon are expanding in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gibberish nonsense. In the earth moon system the centripetal force and >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity are one and the same. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What you said is gibberish nonsense. Centripetal force without the >>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong, Newton PROVED mathematically that only centripetal force >>>>>>>>>> (gravity) was necessary. What have you proved? Nothing? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the zillions of time....Newton’s gravity is not a single force. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well then, you’re saying he’s wrong, because he said it was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot, he did’t know what causes gravity >>>>>> >>>>>> Correct >>>>>> >>>>>>> and he didn’t say that gravity is a single force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes he did. Read what he wrote. >>>>> >>>>> Can you provide a quote by Newton that says that gravity is a single force? >>>> >>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Newton_s_Principia.html?id=N-hHAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button >>>> >>>> Can you prove you can read more than one sentence in a row? >>> >>> Moron I asked you to provide a quote....not a whole book for me to hunt >>> for a quote that Newton said that gravity is a single force. >> >> Yes you asked for a quote. Real men read. They don’t ask other grown-ups to >> do the reading for them and provide a quick pre-chewed nugget. > > Moron, you claimed that Newton said that only one force is required for > the moon to maintain a stable orbit. Yes, and my claim is substantiated by what he actually wrote. Which a lot of people have read, and you have not. Your inability to read is not anyone’s problem. > So I asked you to provide an exact that Newton said that. If you don’t > want to or not capable of doing that....then fuck off and don’t reply to my posts. Ken, you’re going to find that nobody wants to do what you want them to do. They’re not going to buy your book, they’re not even going to read your book. They’re not going to waste time teaching you basics while you argue stupidities. They’re not going to support your ideas or waste time telling you what’s wrong with your ideas. They’re not going to find quotes for you in things you won’t read for yourself. The ONLY reason I respond to you at all is to expose your complete incompetence in front of the readership here. And I’m going to make it clear that your entire reason for posting here is that arguing with people on subjects you know nothing about is how you stave off terminal loneliness and irrelevance. And so I’m going to KEEP replying to your posts, because what I say pisses you off. If you don’t like what I say to you, then don’t reply to me. Or at least try. > >> >> Here’s the message on that: for weeks now you have been making claims about >> what Newton said and did not say, and you’ve been making those claims >> without having ANY IDEA what he said or didn’t say. And when pressed, you >> now ask what he in fact did say, and STILL you do not want to read what he >> said. You are acting like an invalid who can’t do a damn thing for >> yourself, and then you complain when people don’t do what you want. >> >> Don’t make claims about what you don’t know! >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: >>>> >>>> Don’t rely on your common sense! That’s not how to understand physics, you >>>> idiot!! That doesn’t work! >>> >>> Moron, I didn’t rely on common sense. I rely on facts how they launch a satellite >>>> >>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. >>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket to >>>>> a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to follow >>>>> an accelerated tangential orbital motion. >>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! >>> >>> No comment on these facts? >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9bb32c1d-2682-4990-a7e1-cce97f8e15d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460593 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 10:26:52 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > Moron, I didn’t rely on common sense. Well you got that right. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfa151cc-d841-4bf2-805c-11b75af7a96c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460544 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > Okay, Ken. Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? They shut it off! NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. You make yourself look more foolish every day. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e32b1b4-fa08-478d-90c9-4cdc52e02fec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460559 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > > 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > > 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > > 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > > > Okay, Ken. > Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > They shut it off! > > NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. After the rocket is shut off: 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to go off in a tangential direction. 3. The result is an orbiting motion. In my theory: 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive EM force between them. This attractive force will try to pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f695387b-f3b2-4e99-98d9-86ec5dc3160d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460589 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > > > 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > > > 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > > > 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > > > > > Okay, Ken. > > Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > > They shut it off! > > > > NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > > After the rocket is shut off: > 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to go off in a tangential direction. > 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > > In my theory: > 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > > 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > > 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), your description of orbital mechanics finally matches the Newtonian description. You finally made it to the 18th century. How long will it take us to get you to at least the 20th century? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 06:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <098d7829-00e9-4b8b-bc00-c00dc18ed837@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460634 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > > > > 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > > > > 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > > > > 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > > > > > > > Okay, Ken. > > > Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > > > They shut it off! > > > > > > NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > > > > After the rocket is shut off: > > 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > > 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to go off in a tangential direction. > > 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > > > > In my theory: > > 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > > is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > > Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. > > > > > 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > > direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > > EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > > pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > > tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. > > Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > > > > > 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. > > Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), > your description of orbital mechanics finally matches > the Newtonian description. You finally made it to the > 18th century. Moron, Newton did not give a cause of gravity. My theory gives the cause of gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfe1c6$15c7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460676 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: >>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. >>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket >>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to >>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. >>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! >>>>> >>>> Okay, Ken. >>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? >>>> They shut it off! >>>> >>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. >>> >>> After the rocket is shut off: >>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing >>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to >>> go off in a tangential direction. >>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. >>> >>> In my theory: >>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there >>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >> >> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > > Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? >> >>> >>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same >>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive >>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to >>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s >>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. >> >> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > > You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force > acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow > the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are saying that’s not possible. >> >>> >>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. >> >> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), >> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches >> the Newtonian description. You finally made it to the >> 18th century. > > Moron, Newton did not give a cause of gravity. My theory gives the cause > of gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03a4f92a-df44-4c9b-ac67-cd38887e00e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460677 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > >>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > >>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket > >>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to > >>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > >>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > >>>>> > >>>> Okay, Ken. > >>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > >>>> They shut it off! > >>>> > >>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > >>> > >>> After the rocket is shut off: > >>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing > >>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to > >>> go off in a tangential direction. > >>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > >>> > >>> In my theory: > >>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > >>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >> > >> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > > > > Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. > > No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the > application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. > > >> > >>> > >>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > >>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > >>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > >>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > >>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. > >> > >> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > > > > You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force > > acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow > > the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > > Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single > centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are > saying that’s not possible. I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between the earth and the moon. In fact modern physics have no idea what causes gravity between the earth and the moon. GRT describes the mathematical curve path follow by the moon but that is not the cause of gravity. > > >> > >>> > >>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. > >> > >> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), > >> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches > >> the Newtonian description. You finally made it to the > >> 18th century. > > > > Moron, Newton did not give a cause of gravity. My theory gives the cause > > of gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfec56$1pu8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460679 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: >>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. >>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket >>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to >>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. >>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, Ken. >>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? >>>>>> They shut it off! >>>>>> >>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. >>>>> >>>>> After the rocket is shut off: >>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing >>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to >>>>> go off in a tangential direction. >>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. >>>>> >>>>> In my theory: >>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there >>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>> >>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. >>> >>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. >> >> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the >> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? > > Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can treat them independently. So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential acceleration, so no tangential force. > Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. > The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the > center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same >>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive >>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to >>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s >>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. >>>> >>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! >>> >>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force >>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow >>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >> >> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single >> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are >> saying that’s not possible. > > I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between > the earth and the moon. But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. > In fact modern physics have no idea what causes gravity between the earth > and the moon. GRT describes the mathematical curve path follow by the > moon but that is not the cause of gravity. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. >>>> >>>> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), >>>> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches >>>> the Newtonian description. You finally made it to the >>>> 18th century. >>> >>> Moron, Newton did not give a cause of gravity. My theory gives the cause >>> of gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfecfo$1opl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460694 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to >> the moon. > > No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You > can treat them independently. Actually he is right, including Newton. There is mere about Pressure, not Force. A force requires an infinitely ZERO area point, being applied at. There is nothing like that, and that's because I am capable to look beyond Newton and Einstein as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c79803b-c3b6-4f13-aec3-41401f1021dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460694 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > >>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > >>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket > >>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to > >>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > >>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Okay, Ken. > >>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > >>>>>> They shut it off! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > >>>>> > >>>>> After the rocket is shut off: > >>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing > >>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to > >>>>> go off in a tangential direction. > >>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > >>>>> > >>>>> In my theory: > >>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > >>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>> > >>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > >>> > >>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. > >> > >> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the > >> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? > > > > Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. > > No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can > treat them independently. The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). > > So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential > acceleration, so no tangential force. When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. > > Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. > > The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the > > center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > >>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > >>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > >>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > >>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. > >>>> > >>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > >>> > >>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force > >>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow > >>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >> > >> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single > >> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are > >> saying that’s not possible. > > > > I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between > > the earth and the moon. > > But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify > a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the > observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but > it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. But you just admitted that there are radial and tangential components. All I know is: radial acceleration without the constant tangential acceleration will not give stable orbit. > > > In fact modern physics have no idea what causes gravity between the earth > > and the moon. GRT describes the mathematical curve path follow by the > > moon but that is not the cause of gravity. > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. > >>>> > >>>> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), > >>>> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches > >>>> the Newtonian desc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pff044$sdo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460728 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: >>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. >>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket >>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to >>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. >>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Okay, Ken. >>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? >>>>>>>> They shut it off! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off: >>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing >>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to >>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction. >>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my theory: >>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there >>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. >>>>> >>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. >>>> >>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the >>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? >>> >>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. >> >> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can >> treat them independently. > > The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the > tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). >> >> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential >> acceleration, so no tangential force. > > When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? > > >>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. >>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the >>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same >>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive >>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to >>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s >>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! >>>>> >>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force >>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow >>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>> >>>> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single >>>> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are >>>> saying that’s not possible. >>> >>> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between >>> the earth and the moon. >> >> But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify >> a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the >> observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but >> it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. > > But you just admitted that there are radial and tangential components. > All I know is: radial acceleration without the constant tangential > acceleration will not give stable orbit. And how do you know this? Newton says otherwise and proved it. So where is your proof he is wrong? > >> >>> In fact modern physics have no idea what causes gravity between the earth >>> and the moon. GRT describes the mathematical curve path follow by the >>> moon but that is not the cause of gravity. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion), >>>>>> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches >>>>>> the Newtonian desc... > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 05:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <831dafe6-ff07-44c8-bbca-3161a212b36b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460741 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > >>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > >>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket > >>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to > >>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > >>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Okay, Ken. > >>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > >>>>>>>> They shut it off! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off: > >>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing > >>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to > >>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction. > >>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In my theory: > >>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > >>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. > >>>> > >>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the > >>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? > >>> > >>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. > >> > >> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can > >> treat them independently. > > > > The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the > > tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). > >> > >> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential > >> acceleration, so no tangential force. > > > > When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. > > There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for > the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential > acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. > > > >>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. > >>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the > >>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > >>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > >>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > >>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > >>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force > >>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow > >>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>> > >>>> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single > >>>> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are > >>>> saying that’s not possible. > >>> > >>> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between > >>> the earth and the moon. > >> > >> But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify > >> a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the > >> observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but > >> it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. > > > > But you just admitted that there are radial and tangential components. > > All I know is: radial acceleration without the constant tangential > > acceleration will not give stable orbit. > > And how do you know this? > Newton says otherwise and proved it. So where is your proof he is wrong? Newton didn’t say that and he didn’t proved it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfglqd$1dsu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460771 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket >>>>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to >>>>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. >>>>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Okay, Ken. >>>>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? >>>>>>>>>> They shut it off! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off: >>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing >>>>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to >>>>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction. >>>>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In my theory: >>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there >>>>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. >>>>>> >>>>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the >>>>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? >>>>> >>>>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. >>>> >>>> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can >>>> treat them independently. >>> >>> The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the >>> tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). >>>> >>>> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential >>>> acceleration, so no tangential force. >>> >>> When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. >> >> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for >> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential >> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? > > > There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of the moon? > >>> >>>>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. >>>>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the >>>>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same >>>>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive >>>>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to >>>>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s >>>>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force >>>>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow >>>>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single >>>>>> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are >>>>>> saying that’s not possible. >>>>> >>>>> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between >>>>> the earth and the moon. >>>> >>>> But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify >>>> a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the >>>> observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but >>>> it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. >>> >>> But you just admitted that there are radial and tangential components. >>> All I know is: radial acceleration without the constant tangential >>> acceleration will not give stable orbit. >> >> And how do you know this? >> Newton says otherwise and proved it. So where is your proof he is wrong? > > Newton didn’t say that and he didn’t proved it. > Yes he did. I gave you the link. You won’t read it and you deny reality. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bfd9a93-b08b-4254-ab87-843d2b050238@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460775 |
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height. > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket > >>>>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to > >>>>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Okay, Ken. > >>>>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > >>>>>>>>>> They shut it off! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off: > >>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing > >>>>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to > >>>>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction. > >>>>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In my theory: > >>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > >>>>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the > >>>>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. > >>>> > >>>> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can > >>>> treat them independently. > >>> > >>> The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the > >>> tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). > >>>> > >>>> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential > >>>> acceleration, so no tangential force. > >>> > >>> When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. > >> > >> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for > >> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential > >> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? > > > > > > There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. > > Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of > the moon? You look it up in the internet.....just as you refuse to answer any of my questions by telling me to read a book. > > > > >>> > >>>>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. > >>>>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the > >>>>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > >>>>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > >>>>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > >>>>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > >>>>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force > >>>>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow > >>>>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single > >>>>>> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are > >>>>>> saying that’s not possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between > >>>>> the earth and the moon. > >>>> > >>>> But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify > >>>> a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the > >>>> observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but > >>>> it does tell y...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfgvsq$1v1j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460777 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired >>>>>>>>>>>>> height. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn the rocket >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, Ken. >>>>>>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? >>>>>>>>>>>> They shut it off! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing >>>>>>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to >>>>>>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction. >>>>>>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In my theory: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there >>>>>>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the >>>>>>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can >>>>>> treat them independently. >>>>> >>>>> The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the >>>>> tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). >>>>>> >>>>>> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential >>>>>> acceleration, so no tangential force. >>>>> >>>>> When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. >>>> >>>> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for >>>> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential >>>> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? >>> >>> >>> There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. >> >> Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of >> the moon? > > You look it up in the internet So you made some claim about a formula for centrifugal and tangential acceleration, and when anybody asks where you got that, you just dodge? What is the tangential acceleration of the moon? You’re the only one in the world making the claim that the moon has a tangential acceleration. How big is it? > .....just as you refuse to answer any of my questions by telling me to read a book. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. >>>>>>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the >>>>>>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same >>>>>>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive >>>>>>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to >>>>>>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s >>>>>>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force >>>>>>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow >>>>>>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single >>>>>>>> centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are >>>>>>>> saying that’s not possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between >>>>>>> the earth and the moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify >>>>>> a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the >>>>>> observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but >>>>>> it does tell y... > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c216db8-65f5-4fbf-ba45-19c05d189029@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460788 |
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:39:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:50:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired > >>>>>>>>>>>>> height. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they > >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn the rocket > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!! > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, Ken. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket? > >>>>>>>>>>>> They shut it off! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> After the rocket is shut off: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing > >>>>>>>>>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to > >>>>>>>>>>> go off in a tangential direction. > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In my theory: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there > >>>>>>>>>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the > >>>>>>>> application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can > >>>>>> treat them independently. > >>>>> > >>>>> The radial component is derived from the attractive EM force and the > >>>>> tangential component is derived from the repulsive effect (force). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential > >>>>>> acceleration, so no tangential force. > >>>>> > >>>>> When the moon is following a curved path there is constant tangential acceleration. > >>>> > >>>> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for > >>>> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential > >>>> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? > >>> > >>> > >>> There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. > >> > >> Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of > >> the moon? > > > > You look it up in the internet > > So you made some claim about a formula for centrifugal and tangential > acceleration, and when anybody asks where you got that, you just dodge? As you said nobody is here to educate you.....look it up. > > What is the tangential acceleration of the moon? > > You’re the only one in the world making the claim that the moon has a > tangential acceleration. How big is it? > > > .....just as you refuse to answer any of my questions by telling me to read a book. > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth. > >>>>>>> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the > >>>>>>> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same > >>>>>>>>>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive > >>>>>>>>>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to > >>>>>>>>>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s > >>>>>>>>>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force > >>>>>>>>> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow > >>>>>>>>> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ok, so you...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 09:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfja32$7nv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460832 |
On 6/10/2018 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:39:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for >>>>>> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential >>>>>> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. >>>> >>>> Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of >>>> the moon? >>> >>> You look it up in the internet >> >> So you made some claim about a formula for centrifugal and tangential >> acceleration, and when anybody asks where you got that, you just dodge? > > As you said nobody is here to educate you.....look it up. I looked it up for you, Ken. The tangential acceleration for a circular orbit is 0. What does that mean for your hypothesis?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <591909d1-aacc-4dc4-89f5-b90927079456@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460837 |
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:46:12 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 6/10/2018 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:39:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for > >>>>>> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential > >>>>>> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. > >>>> > >>>> Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of > >>>> the moon? > >>> > >>> You look it up in the internet > >> > >> So you made some claim about a formula for centrifugal and tangential > >> acceleration, and when anybody asks where you got that, you just dodge? > > > > As you said nobody is here to educate you.....look it up. > > I looked it up for you, Ken. The tangential acceleration for a circular > orbit is 0. What does that mean for your hypothesis? Sigh....the satellite is constantly changing tangential direction, that’s tangential acceleration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfjhse$1stc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460840 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:46:12 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 6/10/2018 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:39:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:31:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> There is a formula for the centripetal acceleration. What’s the formula for >>>>>>>> the tangential acceleration? If If you were to calculate the tangential >>>>>>>> acceleration of the moon, how would you do it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a formula for centrifugal acceleration and that is tangential acceleration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alright what is that formula, and what is the tangential acceleration of >>>>>> the moon? >>>>> >>>>> You look it up in the internet >>>> >>>> So you made some claim about a formula for centrifugal and tangential >>>> acceleration, and when anybody asks where you got that, you just dodge? >>> >>> As you said nobody is here to educate you.....look it up. >> >> I looked it up for you, Ken. The tangential acceleration for a circular >> orbit is 0. What does that mean for your hypothesis? > > Sigh....the satellite is constantly changing tangential direction, that’s > tangential acceleration. > No it’s centripetal acceleration. The acceleration that changes the direction of the tangential motion points toward the center. That’s why it’s called centripetal. Centripetal means toward the center. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web