Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #549068
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: inertial frames of reference |
| Date | 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <n8fs80$rrr$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <1fdabb0a-5e1a-4577-b96c-764f7a0e4e58@googlegroups.com> <n8dbip$13c7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d7508dfa-c04a-4eb1-b323-afb1269a55e6@googlegroups.com> <n8e75i$jd5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a7823b3d-c5df-419d-ba68-757b45b5f1f4@googlegroups.com> |
On 1/29/2016 3:13 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote.. >>>> So acceleration > needs a net force, according to Galileo. > >> Yes. > >>> But Why does it need force? Current > theory cant explain why. > >> Because nature seems to show that's true. No force --> no acceleration. >> Net force --> acceleration. What more rationale do you need? > >>> So Im saying maybe its gravity. > >> Well ok, but that seems like a pretty easily eliminated idea. So why propose it? > > First of all you havent eliminated it. In the non inertial frame it pulls > on string. Which replaces the fictitious unexplainable centrifugal force. There is no need to replace something fictitious, is there? The force isn't there, nor is it needed. So why do you look for something to explain it or account for it? > That then also being the good reason to propose it. > And you havent eliminated it in the inertial frame. Because it > pulls on the string when the string prevents the ball from > going off in a straight line. No, gravity doesn't pull on the string. The BALL pulls on the string. You don't need anything else to account for the pull on the string. > It explains why you > need a net force to accelerate or change direction of an object. There is no need to explain that. > Some force is resisting change of direction in an object. No, it's not a force. You're not understanding this correctly. You didn't answer my previous question. Let's suppose that there IS NO resistance to a change in motion. Now you have such an object that is moving. What do you expect to happen to it, supposing that there is no resistance to change? > Something that is not explained currently. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 11:31 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:32 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 14:14 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-21 05:10 +0000
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:58 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:01 +0000
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:10 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:25 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 19:47 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 05:37 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:28 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 06:57 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:15 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 07:48 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 19:20 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 14:43 +1100
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:11 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 13:15 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-24 04:48 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:57 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 05:32 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:56 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:34 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:13 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:58 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:09 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:29 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:25 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 09:48 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 14:57 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:03 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 18:32 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:50 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:20 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:34 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:41 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:25 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:54 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:32 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 03:15 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 10:18 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 12:52 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:51 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-27 14:09 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:23 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:26 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:10 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:01 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:14 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 13:02 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:30 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 15:06 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:15 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 18:00 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:19 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:54 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 06:44 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:53 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:07 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:24 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:45 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:32 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:50 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:50 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby hates the truth because it convicts him. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:01 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:27 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 09:33 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:11 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:59 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:08 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:39 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:16 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:06 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 04:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:56 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 18:57 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 05:43 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:13 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:19 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-28 14:47 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:10 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 01:13 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:26 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:05 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:31 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:37 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:58 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:05 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:34 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:14 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:58 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:39 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:43 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:01 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:12 -0500
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 08:59 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 09:03 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:40 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-30 11:36 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:44 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 05:19 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:10 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 10:06 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-31 08:53 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 11:54 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:04 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference xxein1@att.net - 2016-01-31 15:01 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:07 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:54 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 15:04 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:37 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:18 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:26 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:52 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:34 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 10:40 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 12:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-01 16:38 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 07:19 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:53 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 16:27 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 01:39 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 05:49 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-02 10:49 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 13:20 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:43 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 04:20 -0800
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:55 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:43 -0600
Re: inertial frames of reference Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:51 -0600
csiph-web