Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #462935
Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Date	2018-06-29 07:04 -0700
References	(17 earlier) <ph2rfk$1gge$1@gioia.aioe.org> <bbb4aecb-1494-4019-afff-6e9562c9e5cd@googlegroups.com> <ph318h$1ri4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <f0eb7c14-3509-4cb9-99ff-9a362f607496@googlegroups.com> <ph3e35$j3d$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<efeee68d-261f-4e9d-b258-62b0fb085d7a@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?
From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Show all headers | View raw
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
Thread

(Thread has 565 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)
csiph-web