Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458691

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	2018-05-21 16:39 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdusn8$15st$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <9c0f91d9-e1c4-4a26-982b-0c27443d259a@googlegroups.com> <pdskk1$1cp7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5001bb07-e6dd-42b3-af5d-41c817e6ad60@googlegroups.com> <pdumbc$pcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <99cefdb0-6303-4bcd-b972-7afe913bf416@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:08:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:51:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:23:13 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 7:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:54:09 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2018 6:10 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:16:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’ve finally turned the corner into madness. You, the educated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and certified chemical engineer, have come to the conclusion that education
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worthless and that one should avoid reading and education in favor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, I believe that the past concept for gravity is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> No idiot....Newton’s explanation of gravity is wrong. He think that
>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity a composed of a single force...namely the CP force. He didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that without the CF force no orbiting motion is feasible.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you have come to the conclusion that education about 
>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is worthless and that you should avoid reading and education 
>>>>>>>>>>> about gravity.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That’s your conclusion.....not mine.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Because you have decided Newton was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Newton is not God so he can be wrong. He visualized that gravity is a
>>>>>>>>>> single force like the EM force. It is not. It is a composite force as I
>>>>>>>>>> described in the following link:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Only a fool claims to have a new idea in physics while being uneducated in
>>>>>>>>> the basics. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I proposed a new concept for gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...in favor of thinking for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, a REAL scientist with a potential new concept for gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would want to learn as much as possible about existing beliefs about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity. He would want to learn whether the new concept conflicts with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> known facts/measurements of gravity, to see if the concept has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed before (and if so, what happened with it) and especially,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether a test can be devised that would produce different results from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing model if the new concept was correct than if it was false.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> No comment?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From Wikipedia:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also
>>>>>>>> called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of
>>>>>>>> rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame
>>>>>>>> of reference.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Note: fictitious force, no tangential component. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Notice that it is an inertial force directed away from the axis of
>>>>>>> rotation......Hey moron all rational motion have tangential component.
>>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Motion is not a force. 
>>>>>> Look at Wikipedia since YOU cited it. Neither centripetal or centrifugal
>>>>>> has any tangential component. That’s what the words MEAN, toward the center
>>>>>> and away from the center. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moron, the force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.
>>>> 
>>>> Inertial motion requires no force to maintain it. Newton’s first law of
>>>> motion. High school basics. 
>>> 
>>> Moron, in a gravitational field a force is needed to maintain orbiting motion.  
>> 
>> Gravity is not needed for tangential motion. 
> 
> Moron, I said orbiting motion.....the orbiting object have to subject to
> some sort of force to follow a curved orbiting motion. Gee you are so stupid.

A centripetal force. As has been told to you by a half dozen people at
least a dozen times. No force is required for the tangential motion. 

You know, instead of making bad guesses about how circular motion works and
what is responsible for what, you could always read about it in your
textbook. 

Is it better for you to not read and make stuff up (thinking for yourself,
you call it) and then lie to yourself that you’re never wrong? Is that what
feeds your mental condition? 

>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on
>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. 
>>> 
>>> You are indoctrinated.....can’t think for yourself.
>> 
>> Thinking for yourself while being uneducated is a fool’s activity, Ken. It
>> is literally as stupid as putting a hand on a hot stove. In looking back at
>> your history, a couple of decades ago you were actually trying to read
>> Halliday and Resnick and understand what they were saying, and you posted a
>> lot of questions to the group back then. Since then, something broke in you
>> and you gave up on learning and flipped to just making stuff up in your own
>> head — what you call “thinking for yourself”.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If you want to know why your hand goes in a circle when you whirl a rock on
>>>>>>>> a string, then ask. Or read your book. Don’t guess. You get it wrong every
>>>>>>>> single time. 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 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
> 



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

Thread

csiph-web