Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #461824

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	2018-06-20 14:26 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pgdo7b$1nau$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <739a6598-b90d-4c1d-8e98-5b4c72af3615@googlegroups.com> <pg8rue$1j7g$2@gioia.aioe.org> <b4fe05e8-8625-4879-9b58-849e9904477d@googlegroups.com> <pg95qi$5kv$1@gioia.aioe.org> <49f4f9c4-3d88-4dfe-858e-c539c2da0ed2@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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???
> 
> Yes I did....the best I can do is to get half of an orbit before it crash
> into the magnet. It seems that you are a lying sack of shit.

Notice that you have not removed friction between the magnet and the table,
or between the ball and the table. What did I tell you about being careful
to remove friction in your experimental tests. 

Secondly, to get a circular orbit, the velocity of the ball has to be made
not too small and not too large. This is how the moon’s orbit was set up.
The fragments that had speeds less or more than that fell to earth as
meteors or escaped orbit. You didn’t tune the velocity of the balk
correctly because you don’t know the physics and do you didn’t know it was
important. 

> 
>> 
>>> 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. 
> 
> Why don’t you do it and let us know?

It’s been done by others and documented in things you don’t read. Since you
don’t read, you’ll have to do it yourself. If simple experimental design is
beyond you, then give up on physics. Everyone - and I mean everyone - who
has ever made a sizable contribution to physics has mastered these
experimental basics. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Making up stuff as your argument doesn’t work. Gee you are so fucking
>>> stupid.....no wonder you are ...
> 



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

Thread

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

csiph-web