Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458723
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 18:06 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdv1s3$1fen$3@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <0fb1dd3d-aa17-4ec1-b0fe-5f35ab316798@googlegroups.com> <pdumbd$pcb$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5e431d24-64c3-4c21-a67f-8f3ba84d6c89@googlegroups.com> <pdusnb$15st$3@gioia.aioe.org> <5188e370-6934-4770-9fe7-1d5cb5ed5075@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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. 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> I can see that you are tweaking and correcting what you say, with the hopes
>> of eventually getting it right. But you are going to continue floundering,
>> guessing wrong time and time again. You’d save yourself all that
>> embarrassment just by reading the chapter on circular motion in your
>> introductory textbook. Is it really that hard to read an introductory
>> textbook?
> 
> Hey moron, I don’t believe in inertial motion in a gravity field. So why
> would I use it to explain gravity? 

As mentioned and requited back to you, you are the one that said a force is
needed to initiate and maintain inertial motion. 

I see you scrambling to pedal back away from that. Doesn’t help your
credibility. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
> 



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

csiph-web