Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #461648

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	2018-06-18 20:48 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pg95qi$5kv$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <395f68e6-8e6f-4dd9-9554-c1a30a53a325@googlegroups.com> <pg8k1k$13p2$3@gioia.aioe.org> <739a6598-b90d-4c1d-8e98-5b4c72af3615@googlegroups.com> <pg8rue$1j7g$2@gioia.aioe.org> <b4fe05e8-8625-4879-9b58-849e9904477d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> That is also wrong. Every time you open your mouth you say something in
>>>>>>>> conflict with first year elementary physics.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So say an uneducated moron woodworker.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Likely not uneducated at all, as he is absolutely right, Mr Seto.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You, on the other side, have shown that you are 100% uneducated in
>>>>>> the matters of basic math and physics, remember your post below, Mr
>>>>>> Seto?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Newton’s calculations assumed a single attractive force of gravity and a
>>>>> circular orbit of the moon (the same radius for all locations of the
>>>>> moon). The fact that his calculations agree with observation is irrelevant. 
>>>> 
>>>> And with that “irrelevant” comment you continue to show you have NO idea
>>>> how science works. 
>>> 
>>> Idiot....You have no idea how a single attractive force works. The source
>>> of a single attractive force can’t make objects orbit around it. 
>> 
>> Why, yes, Ken, it can.  Take any two objects that are just passing each
>> other with no forces acting on either one of them, and then throw a switch
>> to turn on an attractive force between them — just that one attractive
>> force — and they will now orbit each other. 
> 
> Hey uneducated moron woodworker, I have a magnet and an iron ball I can’t
> make the ball orbiting the magnet. It just crash into the magnet as predicted. 

Did you make them traveling past each other as I specified, or did you just
plop them down in the table? What’s wrong with you? Can you not follow
experimental procedures???

> If there is a circular groove around the magnet and I applied a high
> force to make the ball follow the circular groove then the ball will
> maintain in orbiting motion around the magnet but after a while the ball
> will still fall into the magnet. This is similar to a roulette
> wheel...the ball will not maintain a circular motion forever.

Idiot! Ball on string eventually slows down because of air friction.
Roulette ball eventually slows down because of surface friction. These are
sources of friction that are NOT THERE for planetary orbits. Do the test in
an experiment where friction is removed and then you will see. 

> 
> Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking
> stupid.....no wonder you are just a moron woodworker. 
> 
>> 
>> I get that you don’t understand it. It is nonetheless true whether you
>> believe it or not. 
>> 
>>> Gravity in Newton’s equation is not a single force, it is a composite
>>> force. It is  time you bunch of idiot fanatics to learn some new ideas.
>> 
>> New ideas that come from someone COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED in physics are
>> worthless. That’s why your book has no sales. 
>> so fucking stupid.....no wonder you are just a m
>>> oron woodworker.
>>>> 
>>>> All you care about is what you WANT science to do, rather than what it
>>>> really does. 
>>>> 
>>>>> He failed to explain the cause why a single attractive force of gravity
>>>>> alone can maintain a stable orbit for the moon when our experience and
>>>>> experiments say it can’t. 
>>>> 
>>>> Your experience with a ball and a string has air friction that slows the
>>>> ball down, air friction that is NOT PRESENT with planetary orbits. 
>>> 
>>> No moron, a single attractive force cannot make the moon to follow a
>>> stable orbiting motion.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes it can. Newton proved that. So show his proof is wrong. Take any case
>> without air friction and do the algebra. If you can’t, your assertion is
>> worthless. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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