Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457927

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

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
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	2018-05-14 22:04 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdd165$72u$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <fa5ae798-a89b-48c4-a640-738739403b0b@googlegroups.com> <pda17b$156o$2@gioia.aioe.org> <a26c37f2-4014-443e-bd20-7cec9e9b0c57@googlegroups.com> <pdc5h6$j6q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <cf288d01-a25c-41ef-bd49-b5731ec416ea@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:53:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
>>>>>>>>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
>>>>>>>>> of action at a distance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Never read the Principe?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
>>>>>>> and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
>>>>>> attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
>>>>>> but Newton showed otherwise. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital
>>>>> velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
>>>> 
>>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a
>>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability.
>>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with
>>>> the only force being attractive. 
>>> 
>>> We are  talking about my concept of gravity:
>> 
>> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton
>> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are
>> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about. 
> 
> What I claimed:
> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.

You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also
needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect
statement. You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive. 


> 
> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
> No orbiting motion between them is observed. 

That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are
called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. 

> If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed
> maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel: 
> 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion. 
> 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a
> tangential motion is applied to the ball.
> 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease
> or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. 

That is incorrect. 

> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.

It is still not a force. 

>  
>> 
>> People won’t talk with you about your concept of gravity because nobody
>> cares about it. Nobody cares about it because you are in competent in basic
>> physics and simple math. 
> 
> I don’t care what you fanatic SRians belief. 

You must mean “physicists”. There is no special class of physicists called
SRians. There are a number of non-physicists who are anti-SRians, but who
cares what non-physicists think about anything in physics?

> Keep your head in the sand...that’s why for over 100 years you SR
> physicists still failed to come up with a viable theory of gravity.

General relativity is very viable. I have no idea why you think it’s not. 

> 
>> 
>> If all you talked about were your own concepts, you would get only short,
>> dismissive replies or no replies at all — as you have noticed. When you
>> talk about classical physics or relativity or quantum mechanics, that’s
>> when you make one mistake upon another, and people talk to you about that.
>> This is when you realize you are cornered, out of your depth, and you try
>> to shift the conversation to your ideas, which nobody cares about. 
>> 
>>> 1. The attractive EM force between the earth and the moon.
>>> 2. The repulsive effect between the earth and the moon because they are
>>> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the
>>> universe expands. This repulsive effect replaces the repulsive effect of
>>> the of the tangential motion.
>>> 3. The combination of the above two is gravity. Gravity is so weak
>>> compare to the EM force alone because the repulsive effect cancelled out
>>> some of the attractive EM force.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Stop squirming, it’s unattractive. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> The Model Mechanics explanation is correct:
>>>>> 1. An attractive EM force between the moon and the earth derived from
>>>>> that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as
>>>>> the universe expands.
>>>>> 2. The moon and the earth are confined to
>>>>> the divergent structure of the
>>>>> E-Matrix as they are moving in the same direction.
>>>>> 3. The above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable
>>>>> orbit around the earth.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You are losing what little credibility you have.
>>>>>>>> You have already crossed into negative territory
>>>>>>>> with many people.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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

csiph-web