Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458692

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	<pdusna$15st$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <9c0f91d9-e1c4-4a26-982b-0c27443d259a@googlegroups.com> <pdskk1$1cp7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <0fb1dd3d-aa17-4ec1-b0fe-5f35ab316798@googlegroups.com> <pdumbd$pcb$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5e431d24-64c3-4c21-a67f-8f3ba84d6c89@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:50:25 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, stable orbiting motion requires a force. 
>> 
>> A radial centripetal force. As PROVED by Newton. 
> 
> A radial centripetal force does not provide a force to provide and
> maintain a curved tangential motion for the orbiting object. 

That is true. The centripetal force does not provide or maintain the
tangential motion. It can’t. It has no component in the tangential
direction because the centripetal force is strictly radial. 

But on the other hand, no force is required to maintain the tangential
motion. You are incorrect to believe that a force in that direction is
required. The correct explanation is in your book and is different than
what you’ve made up. 

> 
>> 
>>> High school basic. BTW there is no inertial motion in a gravity field. 
>> 
>> Notice, Ken, that YOU were the one that said right above, and I quote, “the
>> force that initiates and maintains the inertial motion is a force.”
> 
> I was repeating what you said....I should have say that a force is
> required to initiate and maintain orbiting motion.
> 
>> 
>>> All objects are in a state of acceleration toward the center of the source of gravity.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As I said, you make mistakes about EVERYTHING just thinking about it on
>>>> your own without educating yourself in the subject. 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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