Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458400
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	2018-05-19 15:21 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdpfdr$fo1$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <551b8800-168e-4bac-aae9-d8353e93ed9f@googlegroups.com> <pdk2pg$1uki$4@gioia.aioe.org> <59654cf9-7f77-443f-85a3-727cf06a5efd@googlegroups.com> <pdkf1b$l55$2@gioia.aioe.org> <6eed1b60-270e-444d-b2f2-097c6c051abc@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:15:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:38:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof."
>>>>>>>>>>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results
>>>>>>>>>>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the
>>>>>>>>>> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon.
>>>>>>>>>> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> HOWEVER, you said this previously:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary
>>>>>>>>>>> motions, as Newton showed long ago. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector
>>>>>>>>> or tangential Force vector?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both
>>>>>>>>> pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a
>>>>>>>>> radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets
>>>>>>>>> very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause
>>>>>>>>> unstable orbits.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please, do the math. Your idea does not work.
>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ken can’t do math. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration
>>>>>>>> toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its
>>>>>>>> distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the
>>>>>>>> orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the
>>>>>>>> center. The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration
>>>>>>>> toward the center makes no sense to him. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Centrifugal means “away from center”. Anything centrifugal has zero
>>>>>> tangential component and cannot cause “around” motion. Around is
>>>>>> tangential. I believe Ed P has been trying to make this basic point with
>>>>>> you as well. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sigh.....here are the facts:
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry but those are not facts. Those are your assertions. They fly counter
>>>> to all of physics, even high school physics. You somehow have come to the
>>>> conclusion that if your intuition tells you something then it is a fact. 
>>> 
>>> Your assertions are wrong. Centripetal force do not exist without
>>> centrifugal force. IOW, they both exist simultaneously to maintain a stable orbit.
>> 
>> Flat out wrong. Read your copy of Halliday and Resnick. Or, if you want to
>> be even funnier than you are now, tell me that Halliday and Resnick are
>> wrong and you don’t have to read basic physics to understand it. 
> 
> 
> Your argument is based on the failed theory of SR and its failed definitions.

Ken you are arguing with Newtonian physics from the 1600s, two centuries
prior to SR. 

Only a fool would not bother to learn anything about physics and then make
physics claims from just thinking about it. You’re a fool, Ken, and
everyone knows that. All bluster, no meat 


> 
> 
>>>> As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn
>>>> Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it. 
>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
>>>>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get
>>>>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to
>>>>> orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious
>>>>> as physicists assert.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal
>>>>>> force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how
>>>>>> stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved.
>>>>>> You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by
>>>>>> Halliday and Resnick. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
>>>>>>>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
>>>>>>>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
>>>>>>>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
>>>>>>>> physics. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Fucking liar.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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