Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463184

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	2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<phbap9$1bf5$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <fce731cc-cd3a-44c8-b597-bcaa0dec4a02@googlegroups.com> <7233389a-a48d-4529-941c-33528e7eaf09@googlegroups.com> <a9c0afcf-ebb6-454d-a02a-b1b9af9f2cf0@googlegroups.com> <phal9q$7h8$3@gioia.aioe.org> <54ba03d8-eed6-4d65-92bc-deb32b579a74@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 9:34:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:41:40 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:00:39 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 5:12:42 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:40:01 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:50:12 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You depend on Newtonian mechanics to provide all of your calculations while
>>>>>>>> being unable to explain in any quantitative sense how Newtonian mechanics
>>>>>>>> arises from your so-called model. Hand-waving doesn't cut it, Ken.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with that. SR copied the LET math and provided
>>>>>>> different physical interpretation for the LET math. That’s not
>>>>>>> handwaving. You physicists tried for over 100 years and failed to
>>>>>>> come up with a cause of gravity and I was able to do so.....so what wrong with that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You ***imagine*** that you have provided a cause of gravity. But you have
>>>>>> absolutely no evidence that your imagined cause can yield the correct 
>>>>>> equations that will explain the observed data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The equation for the force of gravity  in the following link
>>>>> came from the proposed cause of gravity I outlined.
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity
>>>> 
>>>> I have seen the equation several times.
>>>> However, I have never seen you calculate any values
>>>> using that equation. You have never demonstrated how
>>>> it actually works. All we ask is a simple calculation.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> As a theory of gravity, you should be able to explain the anomalous
>>>>>> precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, etc.
>>>>>> Where do you present discussion of these topics?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Precession of Mercury:
>>>>> My theory provided the cause.
>>>> 
>>>> Demonstrate how it works. Numbers please.
>>>> 
>>>>> Gravitational lensing:
>>>>> Any concentration of matter will distort the surging
>>>>> E-Matrix and thus the light from source being carried
>>>>> by these distorted E-Strings will appear to shift in position.
>>>>> Gravitational wave:
>>>>> Waves in the E-Matrix caused by distant cosmological events.
>>>> 
>>>> Hmm, sounds a LOT like GR and space time. Care to
>>>> demonstrate how it differs?
>>> 
>>> The E-Matrix is nothing like the mathematical hypothetical spacetime.
>>> Spacetime has no structure like the E-Matrix. Furthermore, the concept of
>>> gravity lensing is completely incompatible with the SR concept of light
>>> particles (he photons). 
>> 
>> You do know that the concept of photons is not an SR concept, right? 
> 
> Moron Einstein got his Nobel on the photoelectric effect. 

That’s right. It still isn’t an SR  concept. 
Einstein never got a Nobel for relativity. 
His most referenced paper is about opalescence, which is also not about
relativity. 
He also sized atoms based on Brownian motion, which ALSO is not about
relativity. 

You are uneducated.  

> Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder you are just a woodworker.

Why do you look down on craftsmen, you bigot?

> 
>> 
>> You know that Einstein did more physics than relativity, right? 
>> 
>> You see the problem with being uneducated in physics, right?
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> BTW particle model of light is not able to provide a viable
>>>>> explanation for gravity waves.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe because gravity waves have NOTHING to do with
>>>> electromagnetism (light)? So your comment is not relevant.
>>> 
>>> Idiot, we are talking about gravity lensing of electromagnetism.....not
>>> about gravity waves.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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