Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458764
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 22:28 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pdvh5s$aja$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <99cefdb0-6303-4bcd-b972-7afe913bf416@googlegroups.com> <pdusn8$15st$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5c33f1d9-be9f-40ba-8414-6c81f4c6dd55@googlegroups.com> <pdv12p$1e0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e5383bdb-d0db-40d5-a7f7-a38e11da2794@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 1:53:33 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Moron you need a force to initiate and to maintain curved tangential motion.

Ah so you’ve regressed. The tweaked language you wrote earlier was better.
Now back to ground zero. 

> The rest of your rambling is ignored. It is irrelevant to our discussion.
>> 
>> 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
> 



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

csiph-web