Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #462845
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	2018-06-28 14:31 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ph2rfk$1gge$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <b78bfa03-1075-4cfd-abb1-f1d5ddc4cf02@googlegroups.com> <pgupr7$r17$1@gioia.aioe.org> <478940fa-6b4d-4e67-a0c4-ff1f5eb73b2b@googlegroups.com> <ph07k2$1793$1@gioia.aioe.org> <f0ab9144-5469-4538-bf1c-849ebbc41a8c@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:44:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:07:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 9:17:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:12:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron, why the CF force is not real when I can feel it? BTW what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason for claiming that the CF force is not real and only the CP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is real. BTW your fanatical religious explanation--that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks say so--is not acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you take a look at Paul's demo, you will see that "centrifugal force"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES NOT BEHAVE AT ALL LIKE A TRUE FORCE in directions other than dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an object straight down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://paulba.no/Spaceship.html 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may need to install the Java Runtime on your computer, if you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://java.com/en/download/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Ken, in plainer language that doesn’t involve skills you obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t have, the main lesson is that when you say you feel the centrifugal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force, that is in fact a trick of the mind and is wrong. This and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples are discussed in the basic textbooks that you have chosen not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Here are similar examples, all discussed in basic books, and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous illusions. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, what I feel is real. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well just keep telling yourself that and keep saying every book in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet is wrong if it disagrees with your personal common sense. I love it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you do that. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron and uneducated woodworker, no matter what book or who claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.....the idea that there is no CF acceleration is  completely wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that, Ken, is why you have lost the ability to think and to learn. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter to you if the entire world says you’re wrong, you say you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>> right. You cannot EVER accept the idea you might just be mistaken. It’s a
>>>>>>>>>>>> character flaw, and a deep and crippling one. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> No moron, current physics is liken a cult and ODD is a devoted cult
>>>>>>>>>>> member. What the teachings of the cult are the absolute truth and cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> be challenged. There is no centrifugal force (centrifugal acceleration)
>>>>>>>>>>> is an example of such cult teaching. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to accept such cult teachings because:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I can feel the CF force every time I take a ride in the amusement park.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There are thousands of applications using the concept of CF
>>>>>>>>>>> force.....for example: centrifuges to separate material of different
>>>>>>>>>>> densities, gas centrifuges to separate U 235 from U 238....etc. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I am a rational human being....not a physics cult member. Therefore, I
>>>>>>>>>>> don’t believe in such cult teaching.
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. I asked cult member ODD to explain why that there is no centrifugal
>>>>>>>>>>> force (acceleration)....no explanation was provided.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So, Ken, you say that because you are a thinking human being with sensory
>>>>>>>>>> experience, you have no need to learn even basics physics, even if the
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions you draw from your thinking and experience are dead wrong. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Moron, my experiences are not wrong. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes they ARE. This is SPECIFICALLY why these examples are called out in
>>>>>>>> textbooks, as I mentioned. Because the way people describe their sensations
>>>>>>>> is WRONG and does not match the real explanation. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Deny these hundreds of textbooks until the day you die. Insist that your
>>>>>>>> experience is right until the day you die. You are all alone, claiming that
>>>>>>>> the books are all wrong about these simple explanations. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When I am on a Merry-go-Round it is trying to throw me of it and I do
>>>>>>>>> feel the centrifugal motion. It is you and your SR fanatics who failed to
>>>>>>>>> understand the fundamental of physics. Also you failed to remember that
>>>>>>>>> if your theory contradicts observations or experience 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING in science that says if a theory runs counter to everyday
>>>>>>>> experience then it is wrong. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The assertion that there is no CF force not only runs counter to everyday
>>>>>>> experience. It also runs against actual experiments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No it does not. The only thing that varies is the explanation of what
>>>>>> caused the results. Newtonian physics (without CF) explains all the
>>>>>> observable results in the experiments you have in mind. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As an illustration of this, designers of centrifuges explain their
>>>>>> operation completely without invoking centrifugal force. Therefore the
>>>>>> assertion that there is no real CF is NOT counter to the operational
>>>>>> principles, as the explanation does not require it. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here’s Beckman’s description of a centrifuge operation:
>>>>> "We believe you’ll be a better centrifuge operator if you understand why
>>>>> separations can be made using centrifugal force. You should always
>>>>> reference your user manual for directions on how to operate the
>>>>> centrifuge in your lab.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> It appears that you made unsupported assertion as always. You are a dick-head.
>>>> 
>>>> Ken, your research skills are astoundingly bad. 
>>>> Here’s something simple for you. 
>>>> https://www.explainthatstuff.com/centrifuges.html
>>>> Where it says the following:
>>>> ————————
>>>> In popular books and magazines, people talk about something called
>>>> centrifugal force: the force that seems to make things shoot outward when
>>>> they go round in a circle. So, when a bus goes around a bend at high speed,
>>>> you'll read that it's centrifugal force trying to tip the thing over. When
>>>> your clothes are spinning in the drum, it's centrifugal force that throws
>>>> the water out through the little holes so your washing ends up much drier.
>>>> 
>>>> Or is it?
>>>> 
>>>> Science teachers will tell you this is wrong: there is actually no such
>>>> thing as centrifugal force. We can understand what's really happening by
>>>> considering Isaac Newton's famous laws of motion. When a car begins to
>>>> enter a bend, its natural tendency is to keep going in a straight line—and
>>>> it will do so unless a force acts on it. When it follows the bend, it does
>>>> so because there's a force (called centripetal force) constantly tugging it
>>>> inward from its straight line course. What we see as the centrifugal force
>>>> is really the car's tendency to go straight, if left to its own devices.
>>>> 
>>>> Anytime you're watching something turning round a curve and you're
>>>> wondering about centrifugal force, you can quietly translate what you're
>>>> seeing into centripetal force. So "centrifugal force gets your washing dry
>>>> because it makes the water fly out" becomes "Centripetal force between your
>>>> clothes and the inside of the drum pushes them around in a circle. There's
>>>> nothing to give the water the same kind of push because it can slip
>>>> straight through the drum holes. The clothes experience centripetal force,
>>>> the water doesn't. The clothes go round in a circle, the water goes in a
>>>> straight line—straight through the holes. And that's what gets your washing
>>>> dry.”
>>> 
>>> This is simply not truth.  
>> 
>> Again, I will point out that, as you are uneducated in physics, it is
>> foolishly arrogant for you to insist that the educated experts are all
>> wrong. It’s a really stupid thing for you to do, Ken, and I’m not surprised
>> that nobody takes you seriously. 
> 
> You are uneducated in new physics. 

Nobody in history has made a sizable contribution to physics while being
completely uneducated in physics. Nobody. 

And if you are going to claim to be the first person in history to make a
contribution to physics while being completely uneducated in physics, then
you are both insane an uneducable. 

> There is no CP force exists on the clothes and the water in the clothes
> in  a washing machine. There is only the CF force. 

As I said, you are uneducable. 

> Gravity between the earth and the moon:
> 1.  there exists an attractive EM force because they are expanding in the
> same direction in the E-Matrix.
> 2. the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> of the E-Matrix, this gives rise to a repulsive force between them.
> 3. gravity between them is the sum of the above opposing forces. That’s
> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit. Without the repulsive
> force the moon will simply crash into the earth.
> 
>> 
>>> The clothes and water in the clothes experience the centrifugal force,
>>> the washer tub prevents the clothes from going through the holes in the
>>> tub whereas the water is able to go though the holes and that’s what gets
>>> the washing dry. Learn some real physics instead of making assertions.
>>> The centripetal force does not involve in this drying process....IOW the
>>> CP force is a fictitious force.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Confused? Don't be! It's this simple: if something is moving in a circle,
>>>> there must be a force acting on it somewhere to make it turn, otherwise it
>>>> would go in a straight line. 
>>> 
>>> Yes, the CF force make it turn and the result is driving the water out of the clothes.
>>> 
>>>> So look at the situation carefully and figure
>>>> out where the inward pushing or pulling force is coming from. That's the
>>>> centripetal force. If some part of the object is flying outward, that's not
>>>> because there's centrifugal force: it's because there's no centripetal
>>>> force to make it go in a circle.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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