Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458022

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 21:16 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdfinb$k7n$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <cf288d01-a25c-41ef-bd49-b5731ec416ea@googlegroups.com> <pdd165$72u$1@gioia.aioe.org> <27df685d-35c6-4ee0-8911-d77253b15b08@googlegroups.com> <pdf5jt$1qf7$3@gioia.aioe.org> <3a9fb345-c24e-4e74-b487-3d5e05160646@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> I said repulsive effect and I am tired of your bull shit. In any case the
> attractive EM force is continuous and therefore it needs a continuous
> repulsive effect for the moon to maintain a stable orbit. 

And that is incorrect, as Newton proved. There is no “repulsive effect”
required. A stable orbit automatically has a net acceleration toward the
center. As Newton showed, this net acceleration toward the center does NOT
entail diminution of distance. 

> The DTG description of gravity fits this perfectly and that’s why DTG is a superior theory.
>  
>> 
>>> 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. 
> 
> Then go fuck yourself. You are nothing but an uninformed woodworker.

And you are a chemical engineer who is completely uneducated and unread in
physics. 

And you make the mistake of countless stupid comments about Newtonian
physics which you know nothing about. 

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
> 



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

Thread

csiph-web