Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458718
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 12:53 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdv12p$1e0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <5001bb07-e6dd-42b3-af5d-41c817e6ad60@googlegroups.com> <pdumbc$pcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <99cefdb0-6303-4bcd-b972-7afe913bf416@googlegroups.com> <pdusn8$15st$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5c33f1d9-be9f-40ba-8414-6c81f4c6dd55@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
On 5/21/18 12:18 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> CP force alone is not able to maintain a stable orbit. You need a force to initiate tangential curved motion. The combination of this with the CP force provides a stable orbit.

I see you tweaking language to seek something that is not going to get 
shot down. Here you have dropped the claim that a force is needed to 
maintain tangential motion (leaving the claim that you need a force to 
initiate tangential motion). It's good that you have dropped the 
statement about maintaining tangential motion because no force is needed 
to maintain motion. That's Newton's first law, aka conservation of momentum.

Now as to the statement that a force is needed to initiate tangential 
motion, that statement is also incorrect. It may be true in SOME cases 
but not in all cases. A case where it is true is where you are holding a 
string with a rock tied to the other end, and it's just resting there. 
Then you DO need to exert a force with the string somehow to initiate 
the tangential motion. But there are lots of other cases where you do 
not need a force to initiate a tangential motion. A good example is a 
package being caught by a basket at the end of a pivoted arm, where the 
basket and the pivot are what's doing the moving and the package is just 
dangling there. (This is how trains used to pick up mail parcels.) The 
parcel has tangential motion, relative to the pivot mounted on the 
train, though it is just dangling there from a hook. Just dangling 
there, no force was needed to be exerted on the package to give it that 
tangential motion. When the basket intercepts the package, the basket 
will swing around the pivot, the centripetal force being provided by the 
arm. Note there IS NO tangential force on the package at any time.

This happens in the case of gravity too, and the capture of comets from 
outside the solar system is a great example. Just like the package, the 
comet is just DRIFTING in inertial motion (that is, no force acting on 
it at all) when it passes by the sun, which pulls on it with a 
CENTRIPETAL force due to gravity. There is no tangential force applied 
here -- the comet already has tangential motion due to drifting 
inertially (no forces).

If you would just READ your textbook, this and other cases are explained 
in thorough detail. Elect not to read things and just guess instead, and 
you're going to continue to look like an idiot -- even as you try to 
tweak your language to weed out the obviously wrong parts.

GUESSING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO LEARN PHYSICS.

> 
> 
>>
>> 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


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Thread

csiph-web