Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463003
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	2018-06-29 21:56 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ph69th$1aon$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <f0eb7c14-3509-4cb9-99ff-9a362f607496@googlegroups.com> <ph3e35$j3d$1@gioia.aioe.org> <efeee68d-261f-4e9d-b258-62b0fb085d7a@googlegroups.com> <ph5l6e$6os$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5b46d1e9-c849-4ab6-9ae8-de85d3f67b55@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is you who is uneducated in physics especially in new physics. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes I am the first in history to come up with a new theory of gravity
>>>>>>> that enabled me to unify all the forces of nature. You are a fanatic cult
>>>>>>> member of SR/GR and reject any new idea. <Sad>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are claiming to be the first to come up with a unified theory of all
>>>>>> forces of nature while being WHOLLY UNEDUCATED in physics. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is insanity, pure and simple, Ken. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are uneducated in physics and cosmology so you are in no position to judge.
>>>> 
>>>> What makes you say that, Ken? I’ve certainly read more than you have in
>>>> physics. I understand what physicists say better than you do. I can work
>>>> physics problems and you can’t. I can do math and you can’t.  What makes
>>>> you think you’re in better shape than I am in this subject?
>>> 
>>> I came up with a unified theory for all the forces based on the absolute
>>> motions of the interacting objects in the E-matrix and you just simply
>>> dismissed that say that I have no business of doing that. This means that
>>> you are an uneducated woodworker who failed to accept new ideas.
>> 
>> Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken
>> delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified
>> theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics.
>> That is not true. 
>> 
>> What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in
>> physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. 
> 
> You are uneducated 

What on earth makes you think I’m uneducated in physics? 

> so that’s the reason why you are not knowledgeable. I am educated 

In physics? No you’re not. I’ll bet you can’t even remember basic
chemistry. Want to take on that bet?

> and that’s why I ws able to come up with a new theory of gravity that is
> compatible with all the other forces. Period, end of story.
> 
>> 
>> You coming up with an idea for a unified theory while being WHOLLY
>> UNEDUCATED in physics accomplishes nothing, and it was a waste of your
>> time. 
> 
> You physicists tried for over 100 years and failed to come up with 
> VIABLE THEORY OF GRAVITY. 

Yes they have. It’s very viable. Tested to high precision.  What on earth
makes you think it is not a viable theory of gravity?

> I was able to do so. So I guess that I am more educated than you physicists.

But you haven’t. You don’t have a viable theory. A viable theory has
demonstration of calculations with numbers. Always. Yours doesn’t. So not a
theory. 

> 
>> 
>> The fact that it does NOT qualify you as knowledgeable in physics is
>> reflected in your book sales. No one is going to recognize you as
>> knowledgeable in physics without being educated in physics. That is simple
>> reality. 
>> 
>> No one would be recognized as competent in chemical engineering without an
>> education in chemical engineering, either, and you know it. 
> 
> I have no problem with that I have two patents. What do you have?....nothing!!!

Your two patents have nothing to do with you being knowledgeable in
physics, and you know it. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And to compound it, you’re saying that anyone who pays no attention to you
>>>>>> (uneducated and insane) is a fanatic cult member. So you think that people
>>>>>> who are uneducated and insane should be paid attention to?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am talking to you and you can’t lump yourself as anyone. You are an
>>>>> uneducated woodworker so you are in no position to comment.
>>>> 
>>>> What makes you think I’m uneducated?
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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