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 25 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 29 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <affea98b-c8b3-4fda-9e05-3b49b9568a71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462677 |
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is > >>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" > >>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping > >>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to > >>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>> > >>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>> > >>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>> > >>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >> > >> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >> > >> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >> > >>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >> > >> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >> experience then it is wrong. > > > > The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > > experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > > No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > observable results in the experiments you have in mind. Newtonian physics requires CF motion of the orbiting object to maintain a stable orbit....to maintain a stable CF motion you need a continuous application of a CF force. > > As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > principles, as the explanation does not require it. This is your bogus assertion....the designers of centrifuges use the CF force to design their equipment. BTW that’s why that’s why they call their equipment centrifuges. > > > > >> > >>> then your theory is a failed theory.....time to go back to the drawing board. > >>> > >>>> And > >>>> you say that it doesn’t matter at all what the designers of centrifuges say > >>>> the principle of operation of centrifuges is, if your dim memory says > >>>> otherwise, then you’d rather believe yourself than the designers. And you > >>>> say that if you ask questions about any of this on Usenet, then experts are > >>>> obligated to explain themselves to you until you are convinced. > >>>> > >>>> Are you nuts??? > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Calling the CF force is not real is a fanatical SR religious belief. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. When you step on the gas in your car, you feel pressed back in your > >>>>>>>>>> seat. In fact there is no force pushing you back in your seat. It is your > >>>>>>>>>> mind mistakenly misinterpreting a force FORWARD one forward you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, the seat is accelerating toward me and that’s why I feel the force > >>>>>>>>> pushing me forward > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. When your car makes a sudden left turn, you feel a sideways force > >>>>>>>>>> pushing you to the right. In fact there is no force pushing you to the > >>>>>>>>>> right. It is your mind mistakenly misinterpreting a mix of a force LEFT on > >>>>>>>>>> your posterior and a lack of any force left or right on your head. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, I am in a state of CF motion toward the door and the door is > >>>>>>>>> stopping me go further. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 3. When you are in an elevator and press the Up button, you briefly feel > >>>>>>>>>> heavier as though gravity downward has increa... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, that’s because the floor of the elevator is in a state of CF > >>>>>>>>> motion toward me and I was trying to stop it and that’s why I feel heavier. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgummg$n3f$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462738 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" >>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to >>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it >>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re >>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>> >>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>> >>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>> >>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>> >>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>> experience then it is wrong. >>> >>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >> >> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > > Newtonian physics requires CF motion of the orbiting object to maintain a stable orbit.... No, it does not. Newtonian physics was written up by Newton and is explained thoroughly in books. What you said is counter to all those books. Now maybe you’d like to try something really foolish, like claim that Newton did not understand Newtonian physics as well as you do. > to maintain a stable CF motion you need a continuous application of a CF force. > >> >> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > > This is your bogus assertion....the designers of centrifuges use the CF > force to design their equipment. That is simply not true. You’ve been given references written by the designers. You are simply lying, Ken. > BTW that’s why that’s why they call their equipment centrifuges. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> then your theory is a failed theory.....time to go back to the drawing board. >>>>> >>>>>> And >>>>>> you say that it doesn’t matter at all what the designers of centrifuges say >>>>>> the principle of operation of centrifuges is, if your dim memory says >>>>>> otherwise, then you’d rather believe yourself than the designers. And you >>>>>> say that if you ask questions about any of this on Usenet, then experts are >>>>>> obligated to explain themselves to you until you are convinced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you nuts??? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Calling the CF force is not real is a fanatical SR religious belief. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. When you step on the gas in your car, you feel pressed back in your >>>>>>>>>>>> seat. In fact there is no force pushing you back in your seat. It is your >>>>>>>>>>>> mind mistakenly misinterpreting a force FORWARD one forward you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, the seat is accelerating toward me and that’s why I feel the force >>>>>>>>>>> pushing me forward >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. When your car makes a sudden left turn, you feel a sideways force >>>>>>>>>>>> pushing you to the right. In fact there is no force pushing you to the >>>>>>>>>>>> right. It is your mind mistakenly misinterpreting a mix of a force LEFT on >>>>>>>>>>>> your posterior and a lack of any force left or right on your head. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, I am in a state of CF motion toward the door and the door is >>>>>>>>>>> stopping me go further. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. When you are in an elevator and press the Up button, you briefly feel >>>>>>>>>>>> heavier as though gravity downward has increa... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, that’s because the floor of the elevator is in a state of CF >>>>>>>>>>> motion toward me and I was trying to stop it and that’s why I feel heavier. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 17:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b78bfa03-1075-4cfd-abb1-f1d5ddc4cf02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462677 |
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is > >>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" > >>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping > >>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to > >>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>> > >>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>> > >>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>> > >>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >> > >> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >> > >> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >> > >>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >> > >> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >> experience then it is wrong. > > > > The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > > experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > > No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > > As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > principles, as the explanation does not require it. Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the centrifuge in your lab.” It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > > > > >> > >>> then your theory is a failed theory.....time to go back to the drawing board. > >>> > >>>> And > >>>> you say that it doesn’t matter at all what the designers of centrifuges say > >>>> the principle of operation of centrifuges is, if your dim memory says > >>>> otherwise, then you’d rather believe yourself than the designers. And you > >>>> say that if you ask questions about any of this on Usenet, then experts are > >>>> obligated to explain themselves to you until you are convinced. > >>>> > >>>> Are you nuts??? > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Calling the CF force is not real is a fanatical SR religious belief. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. When you step on the gas in your car, you feel pressed back in your > >>>>>>>>>> seat. In fact there is no force pushing you back in your seat. It is your > >>>>>>>>>> mind mistakenly misinterpreting a force FORWARD one forward you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, the seat is accelerating toward me and that’s why I feel the force > >>>>>>>>> pushing me forward > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. When your car makes a sudden left turn, you feel a sideways force > >>>>>>>>>> pushing you to the right. In fact there is no force pushing you to the > >>>>>>>>>> right. It is your mind mistakenly misinterpreting a mix of a force LEFT on > >>>>>>>>>> your posterior and a lack of any force left or right on your head. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, I am in a state of CF motion toward the door and the door is > >>>>>>>>> stopping me go further. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 3. When you are in an elevator and press the Up button, you briefly feel > >>>>>>>>>> heavier as though gravity downward has increa... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, that’s because the floor of the elevator is in a state of CF > >>>>>>>>> motion toward me and I was trying to stop it and that’s why I feel heavier. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgupr7$r17$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462745 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" >>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to >>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it >>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re >>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>> >>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>> >>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>> >>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>> >>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>> experience then it is wrong. >>> >>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >> >> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >> >> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > > Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the centrifuge in your lab.” > > It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. Here’s something simple for you. https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html Where it says the following: ———————— In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. Or is it? Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing dry." Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it would go in a straight line. So look at the situation carefully and figure out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal force to make it go in a circle. ————————————- > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> then your theory is a failed theory.....time to go back to the drawing board. >>>>> >>>>>> And >>>>>> you say that it doesn’t matter at all what the designers of centrifuges say >>>>>> the principle of operation of centrifuges is, if your dim memory says >>>>>> otherwise, then you’d rather believe yourself than the designers. And you >>>>>> say that if you ask questions about any of this on Usenet, then experts are >>>>>> obligated to explain themselves to you until you are convinced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you nuts??? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Calling the CF force is not real is a fanatical SR religious belief. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. When you step on the gas in your car, you feel pressed back in your >>>>>>>>>>>> seat. In fact there is no force pushing you back in your seat. It is your >>>>>>>>>>>> mind mistakenly misinterpreting a force FORWARD one forward you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, the seat is accelerating toward me and that’s why I feel the force >>>>>>>>>>> pushing me forward >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. When your car makes a sudden left turn, you feel a sideways force >>>>>>>>>>>> pushing you to the right. In fact there is no force pushing you to the >>>>>>>>>>>> right. It is your mind mistakenly misinterpreting a mix of a force LEFT on >>>>>>>>>>>> your posterior and a lack of any force left or right on your head. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, I am in a state of CF motion toward the door and the door is >>>>>>>>>>> stopping me go further. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. When you are in an elevator and press the Up button, you briefly feel >>>>>>>>>>>> heavier as though gravity downward has increa... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, that’s because the floor of the elevator is in a state of CF >>>>>>>>>>> motion toward me and I was trying to stop it and that’s why I feel heavier. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <478940fa-6b4d-4e67-a0c4-ff1f5eb73b2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462747 |
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" > >>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping > >>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to > >>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >>>> > >>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >>>> > >>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >>>> > >>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >>>> experience then it is wrong. > >>> > >>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > >>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > >> > >> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > >> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > >> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > >> > >> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > >> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > >> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > >> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > > > > Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > > "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > > separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > > reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the centrifuge in your lab.” > > > > It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > > Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. > Here’s something simple for you. > https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html > Where it says the following: > ———————— > In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called > centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when > they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, > you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When > your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws > the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. > > Or is it? > > Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such > thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by > considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to > enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and > it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does > so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it > inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force > is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. > > Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're > wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're > seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry > because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your > clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's > nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip > straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, > the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a > straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing > dry.” This is simply not truth. The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the CP force is a fictitious force. > > Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, > there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it > would go in a straight line. Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. >So look at the situation carefully and figure > out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the > centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not > because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal > force to make it go in a circle. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ph07k2$1793$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462771 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it >>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re >>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>>>> >>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>>>> experience then it is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >>>> >>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >>>> >>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. >>> >>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: >>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why >>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always >>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the centrifuge in your lab.” >>> >>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. >> >> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. >> Here’s something simple for you. >> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html >> Where it says the following: >> ———————— >> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called >> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when >> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, >> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When >> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws >> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. >> >> Or is it? >> >> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such >> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by >> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to >> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and >> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does >> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it >> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force >> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. >> >> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're >> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're >> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry >> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your >> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's >> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip >> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, >> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a >> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing >> dry.” > > This is simply not truth. Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised that nobody takes you seriously. > The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, > the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the > tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets > the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. > The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the > CP force is a fictitious force. > >> >> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, >> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it >> would go in a straight line. > > Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. > >> So look at the situation carefully and figure >> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the >> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not >> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal >> force to make it go in a circle. >> > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0ab9144-5469-4538-bf1c-849ebbc41a8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462773 |
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >>>>>> experience then it is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > >>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > >>>> > >>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > >>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > >>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > >>>> > >>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > >>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > >>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > >>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > >>> > >>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > >>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > >>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > >>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the centrifuge in your lab.” > >>> > >>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > >> > >> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. > >> Here’s something simple for you. > >> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html > >> Where it says the following: > >> ———————— > >> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called > >> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when > >> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, > >> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When > >> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws > >> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. > >> > >> Or is it? > >> > >> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such > >> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by > >> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to > >> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and > >> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does > >> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it > >> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force > >> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. > >> > >> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're > >> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're > >> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry > >> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your > >> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's > >> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip > >> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, > >> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a > >> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing > >> dry.” > > > > This is simply not truth. > > Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is > foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all > wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised > that nobody takes you seriously. You are uneducated in new physics. There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. Gravity between the earth and the moon: 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix. 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive force the moon will simply crash into the earth. > > > The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, > > the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the > > tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets > > the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. > > The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the > > CP force is a fictitious force. > > > >> > >> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, > >> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it > >> would go in a straight line. > > > > Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. > > > >> So look at the situation carefully and figure > >> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the > >> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not > >> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal > >> force to make it go in a circle. > >> > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ph2rfk$1gge$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462843 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re >>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >>>>>> >>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. >>>>> >>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: >>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why >>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always >>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the >>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” >>>>> >>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. >>>> >>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. >>>> Here’s something simple for you. >>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html >>>> Where it says the following: >>>> ———————— >>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called >>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when >>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, >>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When >>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws >>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. >>>> >>>> Or is it? >>>> >>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such >>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by >>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to >>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and >>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does >>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it >>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force >>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. >>>> >>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're >>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're >>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry >>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your >>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's >>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip >>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, >>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a >>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing >>>> dry.” >>> >>> This is simply not truth. >> >> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is >> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all >> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised >> that nobody takes you seriously. > > You are uneducated in new physics. Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then you are both insane an uneducable. > There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes > in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. As I said, you are uneducable. > Gravity between the earth and the moon: > 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the > same direction in the E-Matrix. > 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. > 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s > why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive > force the moon will simply crash into the earth. > >> >>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, >>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the >>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets >>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. >>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the >>> CP force is a fictitious force. >>> >>>> >>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, >>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it >>>> would go in a straight line. >>> >>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. >>> >>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure >>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the >>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not >>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal >>>> force to make it go in a circle. >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbb4aecb-1494-4019-afff-6e9562c9e5cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462845 |
On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > >>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > >>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > >>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > >>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > >>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > >>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > >>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > >>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the > >>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” > >>>>> > >>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. > >>>> Here’s something simple for you. > >>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html > >>>> Where it says the following: > >>>> ———————— > >>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called > >>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when > >>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, > >>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When > >>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws > >>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. > >>>> > >>>> Or is it? > >>>> > >>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such > >>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by > >>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to > >>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and > >>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does > >>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it > >>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force > >>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. > >>>> > >>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're > >>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're > >>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry > >>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your > >>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's > >>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip > >>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, > >>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a > >>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing > >>>> dry.” > >>> > >>> This is simply not truth. > >> > >> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is > >> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all > >> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised > >> that nobody takes you seriously. > > > > You are uneducated in new physics. > > Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being > completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. > And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a > contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then > you are both insane an uneducable. Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> > > > There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes > > in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. > > As I said, you are uneducable. > > > Gravity between the earth and the moon: > > 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the > > same direction in the E-Matrix. > > 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > > of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. > > 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s > > why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive > > force the moon will simply crash into the earth. > > > >> > >>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, > >>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the > >>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets > >>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. > >>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the > >>> CP force is a fictitious force. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, > >>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it > >>>> would go in a straight line. > >>> > >>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. > >>> > >>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure > >>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the > >>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not > >>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal > >>>> force to make it go in a circle. > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ph318h$1ri4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462850 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: >>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why >>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always >>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the >>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. >>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. >>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html >>>>>> Where it says the following: >>>>>> ———————— >>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called >>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when >>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, >>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When >>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws >>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such >>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by >>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to >>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and >>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does >>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it >>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force >>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're >>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're >>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry >>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your >>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's >>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip >>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, >>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a >>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing >>>>>> dry.” >>>>> >>>>> This is simply not truth. >>>> >>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is >>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all >>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised >>>> that nobody takes you seriously. >>> >>> You are uneducated in new physics. >> >> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being >> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. > > It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. > >> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a >> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then >> you are both insane an uneducable. > > Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity > that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult > member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? > >> >>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes >>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. >> >> As I said, you are uneducable. >> >>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: >>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the >>> same direction in the E-Matrix. >>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure >>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. >>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s >>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive >>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. >>> >>>> >>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, >>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the >>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets >>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. >>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the >>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, >>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it >>>>>> would go in a straight line. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. >>>>> >>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure >>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the >>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not >>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal >>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0eb7c14-3509-4cb9-99ff-9a362f607496@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462853 |
On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > >>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > >>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > >>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > >>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > >>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > >>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > >>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > >>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the > >>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. > >>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. > >>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html > >>>>>> Where it says the following: > >>>>>> ———————— > >>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called > >>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when > >>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, > >>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When > >>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws > >>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Or is it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such > >>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by > >>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to > >>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and > >>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does > >>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it > >>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force > >>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're > >>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're > >>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry > >>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your > >>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's > >>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip > >>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, > >>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a > >>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing > >>>>>> dry.” > >>>>> > >>>>> This is simply not truth. > >>>> > >>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is > >>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all > >>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised > >>>> that nobody takes you seriously. > >>> > >>> You are uneducated in new physics. > >> > >> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being > >> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. > > > > It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. > > > >> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a > >> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then > >> you are both insane an uneducable. > > > > Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity > > that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult > > member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> > > You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all > forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. > > This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge. > > And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you > (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people > who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment. > > > > > >> > >>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes > >>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. > >> > >> As I said, you are uneducable. > >> > >>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: > >>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the > >>> same direction in the E-Matrix. > >>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > >>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. > >>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s > >>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive > >>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, > >>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the > >>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets > >>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. > >>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the > >>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, > >>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it > >>>>>> would go in a straight line. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes. > >>>>> > >>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure > >>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the > >>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not > >>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal > >>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ph3e35$j3d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462865 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in directions other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >>>>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >>>>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >>>>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >>>>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: >>>>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why >>>>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always >>>>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the >>>>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. >>>>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. >>>>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html >>>>>>>> Where it says the following: >>>>>>>> ———————— >>>>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called >>>>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when >>>>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, >>>>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When >>>>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws >>>>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or is it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such >>>>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by >>>>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to >>>>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and >>>>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does >>>>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it >>>>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force >>>>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're >>>>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're >>>>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry >>>>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your >>>>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's >>>>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip >>>>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, >>>>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a >>>>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing >>>>>>>> dry.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is simply not truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is >>>>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all >>>>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised >>>>>> that nobody takes you seriously. >>>>> >>>>> You are uneducated in new physics. >>>> >>>> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being >>>> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. >>> >>> It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. >>> >>>> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a >>>> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then >>>> you are both insane an uneducable. >>> >>> Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity >>> that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult >>> member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> >> >> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all >> forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. >> >> This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. > > You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge. What makes you say that, Ken? I’ve certainly read more than you have in physics. I understand what physicists say better than you do. I can work physics problems and you can’t. I can do math and you can’t. What makes you think you’re in better shape than I am in this subject? > >> >> And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you >> (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people >> who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? > > I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an > uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment. What makes you think I’m uneducated? >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes >>>>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. >>>> >>>> As I said, you are uneducable. >>>> >>>>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: >>>>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the >>>>> same direction in the E-Matrix. >>>>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure >>>>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. >>>>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s >>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive >>>>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, >>>>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the >>>>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets >>>>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. >>>>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the >>>>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, >>>>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it >>>>>>>> would go in a straight line. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water >>>>>>> out of the clothes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure >>>>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the >>>>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not >>>>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal >>>>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 07:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efeee68d-261f-4e9d-b258-62b0fb085d7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462883 |
On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in directions other than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >>>>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >>>>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >>>>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>>>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > >>>>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > >>>>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > >>>>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > >>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > >>>>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > >>>>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > >>>>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > >>>>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the > >>>>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. > >>>>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. > >>>>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html > >>>>>>>> Where it says the following: > >>>>>>>> ———————— > >>>>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called > >>>>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when > >>>>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, > >>>>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When > >>>>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws > >>>>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Or is it? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such > >>>>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by > >>>>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to > >>>>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and > >>>>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does > >>>>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it > >>>>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force > >>>>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're > >>>>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're > >>>>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry > >>>>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your > >>>>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's > >>>>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip > >>>>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, > >>>>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a > >>>>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing > >>>>>>>> dry.” > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is simply not truth. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is > >>>>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all > >>>>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised > >>>>>> that nobody takes you seriously. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are uneducated in new physics. > >>>> > >>>> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being > >>>> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. > >>> > >>> It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. > >>> > >>>> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a > >>>> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then > >>>> you are both insane an uneducable. > >>> > >>> Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity > >>> that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult > >>> member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> > >> > >> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all > >> forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. > >> > >> This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. > > > > You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge. > > What makes you say that, Ken? I’ve certainly read more than you have in > physics. I understand what physicists say better than you do. I can work > physics problems and you can’t. I can do math and you can’t. What makes > you think you’re in better shape than I am in this subject? I came up with a unified theory for all the forces based on the absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-matrix and you just simply dismissed that say that I have no business of doing that. This means that you are an uneducated woodworker who failed to accept new ideas. > > > > >> > >> And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you > >> (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people > >> who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? > > > > I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an > > uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment. > > What makes you think I’m uneducated? > > >> > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes > >>>>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. > >>>> > >>>> As I said, you are uneducable. > >>>> > >>>>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: > >>>>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the > >>>>> same direction in the E-Matrix. > >>>>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > >>>>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. > >>>>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s > >>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive > >>>>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, > >>>>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the > >>>>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets > >>>>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. > >>>>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the > >>>>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, > >>>>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it > >>>>>>>> would go in a straight line. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water > >>>>>>> out of the clothes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure > >>>>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the > >>>>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not > >>>>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal > >>>>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ph5l6e$6os$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462935 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in directions other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >>>>>>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >>>>>>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >>>>>>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >>>>>>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: >>>>>>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why >>>>>>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always >>>>>>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the >>>>>>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. >>>>>>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html >>>>>>>>>> Where it says the following: >>>>>>>>>> ———————— >>>>>>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called >>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when >>>>>>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, >>>>>>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When >>>>>>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws >>>>>>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or is it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such >>>>>>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by >>>>>>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to >>>>>>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and >>>>>>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does >>>>>>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it >>>>>>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force >>>>>>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're >>>>>>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're >>>>>>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry >>>>>>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your >>>>>>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's >>>>>>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip >>>>>>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, >>>>>>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a >>>>>>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing >>>>>>>>>> dry.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is simply not truth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is >>>>>>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all >>>>>>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised >>>>>>>> that nobody takes you seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are uneducated in new physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being >>>>>> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. >>>>> >>>>> It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. >>>>> >>>>>> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a >>>>>> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then >>>>>> you are both insane an uneducable. >>>>> >>>>> Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity >>>>> that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult >>>>> member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> >>>> >>>> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all >>>> forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. >>>> >>>> This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. >>> >>> You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge. >> >> What makes you say that, Ken? I’ve certainly read more than you have in >> physics. I understand what physicists say better than you do. I can work >> physics problems and you can’t. I can do math and you can’t. What makes >> you think you’re in better shape than I am in this subject? > > I came up with a unified theory for all the forces based on the absolute > motions of the interacting objects in the E-matrix and you just simply > dismissed that say that I have no business of doing that. This means that > you are an uneducated woodworker who failed to accept new ideas. Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics. That is not true. What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. You coming up with an idea for a unified theory while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics accomplishes nothing, and it was a waste of your time. The fact that it does NOT qualify you as knowledgeable in physics is reflected in your book sales. No one is going to recognize you as knowledgeable in physics without being educated in physics. That is simple reality. No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you >>>> (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people >>>> who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? >>> >>> I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an >>> uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment. >> >> What makes you think I’m uneducated? >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes >>>>>>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, you are uneducable. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: >>>>>>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the >>>>>>> same direction in the E-Matrix. >>>>>>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure >>>>>>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. >>>>>>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s >>>>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive >>>>>>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, >>>>>>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the >>>>>>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets >>>>>>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. >>>>>>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the >>>>>>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, >>>>>>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it >>>>>>>>>> would go in a straight line. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water >>>>>>>>> out of the clothes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure >>>>>>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the >>>>>>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not >>>>>>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal >>>>>>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b46d1e9-c849-4ab6-9ae8-de85d3f67b55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462957 |
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not real and only the CP > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in directions other than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind and is wrong. This and other > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in basic books, and all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just be mistaken. It’s a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what > >>>>>>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the > >>>>>>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their > >>>>>>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the > >>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational > >>>>>>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: > >>>>>>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why > >>>>>>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always > >>>>>>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the > >>>>>>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. > >>>>>>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html > >>>>>>>>>> Where it says the following: > >>>>>>>>>> ———————— > >>>>>>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called > >>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when > >>>>>>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, > >>>>>>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When > >>>>>>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws > >>>>>>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Or is it? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such > >>>>>>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by > >>>>>>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to > >>>>>>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and > >>>>>>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does > >>>>>>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it > >>>>>>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force > >>>>>>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're > >>>>>>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're > >>>>>>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry > >>>>>>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your > >>>>>>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's > >>>>>>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip > >>>>>>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, > >>>>>>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a > >>>>>>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing > >>>>>>>>>> dry.” > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is simply not truth. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is > >>>>>>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all > >>>>>>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised > >>>>>>>> that nobody takes you seriously. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are uneducated in new physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being > >>>>>> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. > >>>>> > >>>>>> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a > >>>>>> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then > >>>>>> you are both insane an uneducable. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity > >>>>> that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult > >>>>> member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> > >>>> > >>>> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all > >>>> forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. > >>>> > >>>> This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. > >>> > >>> You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge. > >> > >> What makes you say that, Ken? I’ve certainly read more than you have in > >> physics. I understand what physicists say better than you do. I can work > >> physics problems and you can’t. I can do math and you can’t. What makes > >> you think you’re in better shape than I am in this subject? > > > > I came up with a unified theory for all the forces based on the absolute > > motions of the interacting objects in the E-matrix and you just simply > > dismissed that say that I have no business of doing that. This means that > > you are an uneducated woodworker who failed to accept new ideas. > > Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken > delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified > theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics. > That is not true. > > What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in > physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. You are uneducated so that’s the reason why you are not knowledgeable. I am educated and that’s why I ws able to come up with a new theory of gravity that is compatible with all the other forces. Period, end of story. > > You coming up with an idea for a unified theory while being WHOLLY > UNEDUCATED in physics accomplishes nothing, and it was a waste of your > time. You physicists tried for over 100 years and failed to come up with VIABLE THEORY OF GRAVITY. I was able to do so. So I guess that I am more educated than you physicists. > > The fact that it does NOT qualify you as knowledgeable in physics is > reflected in your book sales. No one is going to recognize you as > knowledgeable in physics without being educated in physics. That is simple > reality. > > No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an > education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. I have no problem with that I have two patents. What do you have?....nothing!!! > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you > >>>> (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people > >>>> who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? > >>> > >>> I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an > >>> uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment. > >> > >> What makes you think I’m uneducated? > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes > >>>>>>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, you are uneducable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: > >>>>>>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the > >>>>>>> same direction in the E-Matrix. > >>>>>>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure > >>>>>>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. > >>>>>>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s > >>>>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive > >>>>>>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, > >>>>>>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the > >>>>>>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets > >>>>>>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. > >>>>>>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the > >>>>>>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, > >>>>>>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it > >>>>>>>>>> would go in a straight line. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water > >>>>>>>>> out of the clothes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure > >>>>>>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the > >>>>>>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not > >>>>>>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal > >>>>>>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ph69th$1aon$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #463000 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not real and only the CP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in directions other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind and is wrong. This and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in basic books, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is completely wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re wrong, you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just be mistaken. It’s a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> park. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concept of CF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational >>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation: >>>>>>>>>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why >>>>>>>>>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always >>>>>>>>>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the >>>>>>>>>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. >>>>>>>>>>>> Here’s something simple for you. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html >>>>>>>>>>>> Where it says the following: >>>>>>>>>>>> ———————— >>>>>>>>>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called >>>>>>>>>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when >>>>>>>>>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed, >>>>>>>>>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When >>>>>>>>>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws >>>>>>>>>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or is it? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such >>>>>>>>>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by >>>>>>>>>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to >>>>>>>>>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and >>>>>>>>>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does >>>>>>>>>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it >>>>>>>>>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force >>>>>>>>>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're >>>>>>>>>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're >>>>>>>>>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry >>>>>>>>>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your >>>>>>>>>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip >>>>>>>>>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force, >>>>>>>>>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a >>>>>>>>>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing >>>>>>>>>>>> dry.” >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is simply not truth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is >>>>>>>>>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all >>>>>>>>>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised >>>>>>>>>> that nobody takes you seriously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are uneducated in new physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being >>>>>>>> completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a >>>>>>>> contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then >>>>>>>> you are both insane an uneducable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity >>>>>>> that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult >>>>>>> member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all >>>>>> forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. >>>>> >>>>> You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge. >>>> >>>> What makes you say that, Ken? I’ve certainly read more than you have in >>>> physics. I understand what physicists say better than you do. I can work >>>> physics problems and you can’t. I can do math and you can’t. What makes >>>> you think you’re in better shape than I am in this subject? >>> >>> I came up with a unified theory for all the forces based on the absolute >>> motions of the interacting objects in the E-matrix and you just simply >>> dismissed that say that I have no business of doing that. This means that >>> you are an uneducated woodworker who failed to accept new ideas. >> >> Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken >> delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified >> theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics. >> That is not true. >> >> What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in >> physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. > > You are uneducated What on earth makes you think I’m uneducated in physics? > so that’s the reason why you are not knowledgeable. I am educated In physics? No you’re not. I’ll bet you can’t even remember basic chemistry. Want to take on that bet? > and that’s why I ws able to come up with a new theory of gravity that is > compatible with all the other forces. Period, end of story. > >> >> You coming up with an idea for a unified theory while being WHOLLY >> UNEDUCATED in physics accomplishes nothing, and it was a waste of your >> time. > > You physicists tried for over 100 years and failed to come up with > VIABLE THEORY OF GRAVITY. Yes they have. It’s very viable. Tested to high precision. What on earth makes you think it is not a viable theory of gravity? > I was able to do so. So I guess that I am more educated than you physicists. But you haven’t. You don’t have a viable theory. A viable theory has demonstration of calculations with numbers. Always. Yours doesn’t. So not a theory. > >> >> The fact that it does NOT qualify you as knowledgeable in physics is >> reflected in your book sales. No one is going to recognize you as >> knowledgeable in physics without being educated in physics. That is simple >> reality. >> >> No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an >> education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. > > I have no problem with that I have two patents. What do you have?....nothing!!! Your two patents have nothing to do with you being knowledgeable in physics, and you know it. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you >>>>>> (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people >>>>>> who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to? >>>>> >>>>> I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an >>>>> uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment. >>>> >>>> What makes you think I’m uneducated? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes >>>>>>>>> in a washing machine. There is only the CF force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said, you are uneducable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gravity between the earth and the moon: >>>>>>>>> 1. there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the >>>>>>>>> same direction in the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>>> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure >>>>>>>>> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them. >>>>>>>>> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s >>>>>>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive >>>>>>>>> force the moon will simply crash into the earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force, >>>>>>>>>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the >>>>>>>>>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets >>>>>>>>>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions. >>>>>>>>>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the >>>>>>>>>>> CP force is a fictitious force. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle, >>>>>>>>>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it >>>>>>>>>>>> would go in a straight line. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water >>>>>>>>>>> out of the clothes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure >>>>>>>>>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the >>>>>>>>>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not >>>>>>>>>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal >>>>>>>>>>>> force to make it go in a circle. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <713978b7-dd3d-497b-9721-cc42d8b370ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463000 |
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 4:10:48 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an > > education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. > > I have no problem with that I have two patents. What do you have?....nothing!!! So what, Ken? Your chemical engineering patents have nothing to do with relativity. My own work would probably have resulted in two patents, except that the startup company I worked for went bankrupt during the Telecom Crash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecoms_crash Being able to produce a patent or two doesn't mean very much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7093cdb-d148-4cef-a7d9-2218df5e17b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463007 |
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 6:51:00 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 4:10:48 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > > No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an > > > education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. > > > > I have no problem with that I have two patents. What do you have?....nothing!!! > > So what, Ken? Your chemical engineering patents have nothing to do with > relativity. > > My own work would probably have resulted in two patents, except that the > startup company I worked for went bankrupt during the Telecom Crash. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecoms_crash The crash probably due in part to your failure to come up with any patent in time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4db7102e-f19c-45c4-b1c7-648442ad46c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463000 |
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken > > delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified > > theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics. > > That is not true. > > > > What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in > > physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. > > You are uneducated so that’s the reason why you are not knowledgeable. > I am educated and that’s why I ws able to come up with a new theory > of gravity that is compatible with all the other forces. Period, > end of story. yes you are educated in Chemical Engineering. My best friend from college also studied Chemical Engineering. I don't recall him taking any classes in upper level physics, and especially not relativity. As for your theory, you have not even taken the first step to prove that theory, make a measurable prediction. So, your story is far from over. > > > > > You coming up with an idea for a unified theory while being WHOLLY > > UNEDUCATED in physics accomplishes nothing, and it was a waste of your > > time. > > You physicists tried for over 100 years and failed to come up > with VIABLE THEORY OF GRAVITY. Your definition if viable must be very different from most scientists. General relativity works very well. > I was able to do so. So I guess that > I am more educated than you physicists. But apparently not educated enough to use your own theory. Show a calculated result using your equations. > > > > > The fact that it does NOT qualify you as knowledgeable in physics is > > reflected in your book sales. No one is going to recognize you as > > knowledgeable in physics without being educated in physics. That is simple > > reality. > > > > No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an > > education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. > > I have no problem with that I have two patents. Spoken like a true engineer. > What do you have?....nothing!!! Spoken like a true troll. If I hadn't looked you up in google, I would have thought you were just McGinn in another nym. Patents at least are supposed to work, but your theory doesn't. At least you have not demonstrated how it works. Calculate something! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12ebadd1-c8ba-4852-8160-8e6124982201@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463055 |
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:28:11 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken > > > delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified > > > theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics. > > > That is not true. > > > > > > What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in > > > physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. > > > > You are uneducated so that’s the reason why you are not knowledgeable. > > I am educated and that’s why I ws able to come up with a new theory > > of gravity that is compatible with all the other forces. Period, > > end of story. > > yes you are educated in Chemical Engineering. > My best friend from college also studied Chemical Engineering. > I don't recall him taking any classes in upper level physics, > and especially not relativity. The point is: You don’t need to be in upper level physics to come up with new idea of physics. In fact it is detrimental.....current physicists are so involved in abstract math they passover the easy and simple solution of the universe. For example I came up with a new theory of gravity by refusing to invoke any abstractions such as more than 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web