Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460677

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	2018-06-08 13:46 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pfe1c6$15c7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <46eae83e-3a45-400f-a5a5-391585d8224b@googlegroups.com> <cfa151cc-d841-4bf2-805c-11b75af7a96c@googlegroups.com> <2e32b1b4-fa08-478d-90c9-4cdc52e02fec@googlegroups.com> <f695387b-f3b2-4e99-98d9-86ec5dc3160d@googlegroups.com> <098d7829-00e9-4b8b-bc00-c00dc18ed837@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lets look at how they launch a satellite:
>>>>> 1. They apply a vertical rocket force to left the satellite to a desired height.
>>>>> 2. When the satellite reached the desired height they turn the rocket
>>>>> to a tangential direction and apply a force to cause the satellite to
>>>>> follow an accelerated tangential orbital motion. 
>>>>> 3. See there are two forces involved in launching a satellite!!!
>>>>> 
>>>> Okay, Ken.
>>>> Once the satellite is in orbit, what happens with the rocket?
>>>> They shut it off!
>>>> 
>>>> NO tangential acceleration needed once orbit is achieved.
>>> 
>>> After the rocket is shut off:
>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there is nothing
>>> to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity.
>>> 2. The attractive force of gravity will try to prevent the satellite to
>>> go off in a tangential direction.
>>> 3. The result is an orbiting motion.
>>> 
>>> In my theory:
>>> 1. The satellite will have a tangential velocity and there
>>> is nothing to stop the satellite to maintain this tangential velocity.
>> 
>> Finally you start to use the correct term: tangential velocity.
> 
> Moron tangential velocity is derived from tangential force.

No Ken. Newton’s first law. Objects in motion remain in motion without the
application of a force. You saying Newton’s first law is wrong?

>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. The satellite and the earth are expanding in the same
>>> direction as the universe expands. This create an attractive
>>> EM force between them. This attractive force will try to
>>> pull the satellite toward the earth and the satellite’s
>>> tangential velocity will try to prevent this from happening.
>> 
>> Still no "tangential force". So maybe you can learn!
> 
> You are a moron, in my theory there is a repulsive tangential force
> acting on the moon because the earth and the moon are confined to follow
> the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

Ok, so you ARE saying Newton is wrong, since he proved that a single
centripetal force is sufficient for stable circular orbits and you are
saying that’s not possible. 

>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. The result of these opposing effects is an orbiting motion.
>> 
>> Other than your weird explanation for gravity (expansion),
>> your description of orbital mechanics finally matches
>> the Newtonian description. You finally made it to the
>> 18th century.
> 
> Moron, Newton did not give a cause of gravity. My theory gives the cause
> of gravity. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 



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

Thread

(Thread has 565 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)

csiph-web