Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457984

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	<pdf5jt$1qf7$3@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <a26c37f2-4014-443e-bd20-7cec9e9b0c57@googlegroups.com> <pdc5h6$j6q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <cf288d01-a25c-41ef-bd49-b5731ec416ea@googlegroups.com> <pdd165$72u$1@gioia.aioe.org> <27df685d-35c6-4ee0-8911-d77253b15b08@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect is
> also needed to maintain a stable orbit. 

You said repulsive force. Look it up. 
Secondly, anything tangential is NOT repulsive. 

> That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from
> that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent
> structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit.
> 
>> 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.  
> 
> Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion
> because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination
> with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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. S The two objects are
>> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. 
> 
> I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not
> going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.

No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your
incorrect claims about Newtonian physics. 


> 
>> 
>>> 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. 
> 
> You are full of shit.
> 
>> 
>>> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.
>> 
>> It is still not a force. 
>> 
> 
> Tangential motion requires an applied force 

That is incorrect. 

> and that applied force must be continuous to maintain a stable orbit.

That is also incorrect. 

> ....the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> of the E-Matrix can be considered as continuous repulsive effect between
> the earth and the moon.
> 



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

Thread

csiph-web