Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458349

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	2018-05-18 21:50 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdnhrh$1j76$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <pdi1qj$kov$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9e1e0e04-904a-4948-be7b-f9b7600a4384@googlegroups.com> <c87a187b-af93-4395-b594-3e00a0569a9f@googlegroups.com> <1dd142cb-9e99-4cc9-9726-0fe2bedfaf12@googlegroups.com> <7441b90c-07e7-4cc4-98f6-920777bd7f99@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> 
>>>> You area lying sack of shit. I said if there is only attractive force
>>>> then there is no tangential orbiting motion and the two objects will
>>>> simply move toward each other until contact.....like a magnet attracts
>>>> a steel ball.
>>> 
>>> So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion?
>> 
>> You don’t know the facts so you are babbling.
> 
> I only respond to acknowledge that you insulting me is
> not a valid argument.
> 
>> Here are the facts
>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
> 
> Bzzzt, wrong.
> Newton proved orbital motion requires only the
> centripetal force.
> 
> 
>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force
>> one gets orbiting motion.
> 
> centrifugal force in a fictitious force. Newton shows that
> orbital motion follows the change in velocity (a vector) 
> due to the gravitational (centripetal) force, resulting in
> Keplerian orbital path.
> 
>> That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion.
>> That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as
>> physicists assert.
> 
> Physicists do not merely assert it. 
> Using Newton's equations physicists predict orbital motions
> successfully. That is the real test of Newton's theory.
> 
>> 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal
>> force completely and cause the orbiting object to break
>> free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the
>> end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break
>> the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential
>> direction.
> 
> This is a slightly different problem, but the explanation is the
> same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia
> of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone,
> but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers.

To augment your answer, a beginning student will say, what breaks the
string if not a centrifugal force pulling the object outward? Ken has never
learned the answer. The answer is that the string is the agent that
provides the centripetal force on the object, producing the centripetal
acceleration that is required for circular motion. Since that acceleration
is proportional to v^2, then the faster the object goes, the more force the
string has to provide to produce the increased centripetal acceleration.
The string has a limit to how much force it can provide before it breaks.
When it breaks, there is no longer ANY force on the object (certainly not
any centrifugal force) which is why it continues in uniform straight line
motion from that point. 

>>>> 
>>>> This is an outright lie....I said no such thing. I said that
>>>> a stable orbit requires a centripetal force pulling the object
>>>> toward the center and a centrifugal force that causes the object
>>>> to orbit around the center.
>>> 
>>> NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit.
> 
> And here is the key point:
>  it is not directed in a tangent to the motion.
>  Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center.
> 
> So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing
> that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but
> it points the wrong way!!!!!!
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 



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

Thread

csiph-web