Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460694

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 16:50 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pfec56$1pu8$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <2e32b1b4-fa08-478d-90c9-4cdc52e02fec@googlegroups.com> <f695387b-f3b2-4e99-98d9-86ec5dc3160d@googlegroups.com> <098d7829-00e9-4b8b-bc00-c00dc18ed837@googlegroups.com> <pfe1c6$15c7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <03a4f92a-df44-4c9b-ac67-cd38887e00e0@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Moron, Newton’s first law apply when there is no force is applied to the moon. 

No Ken. That’s the point of the radial and tangential components. You can
treat them independently. 

So in the tangential direction, the speed is constant, so no tangential
acceleration, so no tangential force. 

> Gravity is continually pulling the moon toward the center of the earth.
> The tangential force will continually direct the moon from moving to the
> center of the earth. The result is orbiting motion.
> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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. 
> 
> I am saying that Newton have no idea what is the cause of gravity between
> the earth and the moon. 

But that’s different than the single force proof. You don’t need to specify
a cause for a force in order to show that a single force can produce the
observed motion. Newton’s 2nd law doesn’t specify causes for ANY force but
it does tell you what motion you will get for any combination of forces. 

> In fact modern physics have no idea what causes gravity between the earth
> and the moon. GRT describes the mathematical curve path follow by the
> moon but that is not the cause of gravity.
> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
> 



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

Thread

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

csiph-web