Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457836

Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

From	Volney <volney@volney.invalid>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?
Date	2018-05-12 19:47 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<pd7ugk$uf8$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <3bbfcd47-a4d8-45cb-b382-1825724c69a8@googlegroups.com> <1434242d-9cbe-40a5-84ac-bb38720cf395@googlegroups.com> <df69b5a7-a4da-4079-b02d-e30324a8b281@googlegroups.com> <pd7e87$q0g$1@dont-email.me> <b4b0f06c-42f0-45f8-adf1-0cfc09bcece8@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/12/2018 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated...
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic.
>>>> Stay on topic:
>>>>
>>>> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer:
>>>>> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth.
>>>>> This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity...
>>>>
>>>> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat".
>>>> There is "the existence of the sat", etc.
>>>>
>>>> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
>>>>
>>>> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits.
>>>> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that.
>>>>
>>>>> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>
>>>> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits.
>>>> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat.
>>>
>>> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only  an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not a false statement. An attractive force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity (thus the momentum) and that prevents the moon crashing into the earth. That’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>
>> Ken, the problem is that you claimed that there were both attractive and
>> repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were
>> asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in
>> this thread:
>>
>> "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.....the
>> moon will crash into the sun eventually. That’s why we need the
>> repulsive force between the moon and the earth to prevent the moon
>> crashing into the earth. This repulsive force is due to the earth and
>> the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the ether
>> (the E-Matrix). The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing
>> to the center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect is
>> point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit vector of the
>> attractive force. The resulting unit vector is at a tangential direction
>> and that’s why the moon is orbiting the earth."
>>
>> Why didn’t you prove your claim?
> 
> Why didn’t provide prove of his equation?

That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim. 
That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why?
> 
> 
>>
>> BTW the sentence "The unit vector of the repulsive effect is point away
>> from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit vector of the attractive
>> force.” is self-contradictory.
> 
> 
> Explain why this is contradictory?

You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force 
is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to 
the attractive force. Which is it?

I assumed it was a typo or thinko, like when you used the word "sun" 
instead of "earth" in this earlier quote of yours: > "If there is only 
attractive force then the system is not stable.....the moon will crash 
into the sun eventually.

You know what the meaning of the word "assume" is...

Thread

csiph-web