Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457982
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	2018-05-15 17:32 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdf5jr$1qf7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <2a1d1be8-8025-4ddb-aaaa-e9a842148ce7@googlegroups.com> <pd9sf6$nv6$1@dont-email.me> <7d0e3be5-59ea-44c2-ac4b-a45866f06d82@googlegroups.com> <pdd27n$1ms$1@dont-email.me> <2282ccf1-bbf8-4877-9aba-bb5133f769cc@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:22:48 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/14/2018 9:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 1:26:00 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2018 11:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 10:44:48 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 9:40 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Idiot, the prove of an equation is to do experiments to see of the
>>>>>>> predictions of the equation agree with observations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So once again, why didn’t you provide proof of yoaintain ur claim?
>>>>>> As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post
>>>>>> your proof here without launching satellites or whatever.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moron, my claim is that the moon cannot maintain a stable orbit
>>>>> around the earth if there is only an attractive force between them.
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't ask what your claim was. You have made your claim several times
>>>> in this thread. I was asking why you didn't try to prove your claim that
>>>> a repulsive force was necessary or that an attractive only force was
>>>> unstable. Can you prove your claim or not? Please answer yes or no.
>>> 
>>> 1. Two charged balls, one positive and one negative they will attract
>>> to each other until they are in contact with each other....not orbiting
>>> each other as you seem to claim.
>> 
>> They will if the system has some angular momentum in the objects' 
>> motions at the start. Same as gravity. If you have two masses they will 
>> be attracted to each other and make contact if they don't have enough 
>> angular momentum.
> 
> Sigh....in order to have angular momentum you have to apply a force at
> right angle wrt the attractive EM force. 

That is factually incorrect. No tangential force is required for nonzero
angular momentum. This is taught even in high school. Two objects passing
each other in uniform straight line motion — ie no forced involved at all —
still have angular momentum. 

If you don’t know basic high school physics you will continue to make
idiotic remarks like yours above. 

> That destroys you argument that only an attractive force is need to give
> you a stable orbiting motion.
> With DTG the angular momentum is derived from the confinement of the moon
> and the earth to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are
> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> 
>> 
>>> 2. Now if one of the ball is fixed and the other is accelerated to a
>>> suitable velocity it will follow a n orbiting motion.
>> 
>> Well yes, that's pretty much saying the system has enough angular 
>> momentum in the objects’ motions.
> 
> So will you admit that you were wrong by insisting that only an
> attractive force is needed to give you a stable orbit?
> 
>> 
>> But you *still* didn't answer my question. Why is a repulsive force 
>> necessary in these two situations? Where is it? There is only a 
>> gravitational attractive force in the gravity example (and Newton proved 
>> it was stable), and only attractive electric force in the charged 
>> objects example. Electric force follows the same inverse square law that 
>> gravity does so it, too, will be stable.
> 
> In DTG the repulsive effect is needed because that in combination with
> the attractive EM force gives you angular momentum and thus a stable orbit.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
>>>>>>> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
>>>>>>> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the
>>>>>>> divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
>>>>>>> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force
>>>>>> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a
>>>>>> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's
>>>>>> contradictory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a
>>>>> repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force.
>>>>> Gravity is the combined result of these opposing  effects. That’s why
>>>>> the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
>>>> 
>>>> Again you are answering a question I didn't ask. Once again, how can a
>>>> force be both repulsive (opposite of the attractive force) and at right
>>>> angles to the attractive force. Can you please answer that question?
>>> 
>>> Sigh....gravity is an attractive EM force less the repulsive effect
>>> that the gravitating objects are confined to follow the divergent
>>> structure of the E-Matrix. That’s why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force.
>>> 
>> 
>> That's not what I asked. I asked how a force can be both repulsive and 
>> at a right angle to the attractive force.
>> 
>> Do you even know what a force is? Do you understand that forces are a 
>> vector with a magnitude and direction? Do you know which directions 
>> attractive and repulsive forces act?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thread

csiph-web