Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463257

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	2018-07-02 15:07 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<phdf37$ntj$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <829006cf-20e5-4688-ba5b-388f0a146249@googlegroups.com> <bf5a57b2-abb0-4d1f-845c-8de359731d92@googlegroups.com> <a416fea3-7ff5-4ad3-bd6a-7e24d49ad10a@googlegroups.com> <phdatp$g5q$6@gioia.aioe.org> <53a77f57-610b-498c-bd2d-6f1643af545a@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 9:56:13 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Overall, it looks like the option previously explored, with the
>>>>> magnet poking through the table from below, may be preferable to the
>>>>> option discussed here with the magnet mounted underneath the table.
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id B-lx3At_ewGVmMUmKtwRylJJGAr_Osc
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, the magnet mounted underneath the table option is not
>>>>> without merit. Among other things, collision of the "planet" with
>>>>> the "Sun" is intrinsically impossible.
>>>> 
>>>> In case anybody has forgotten WHY I am conducting this little project, it is
>>>> in response to an exchange between Ken and Odd on June 18. Ken has insisted 
>>>> that radial force alone is insufficient to maintain a planet in its orbit,
>>>> despite numerous textbooks and argumentation by knowledgeable people on this 
>>>> group.
>>> 
>>> Authors of the text books don t understand that gravity is not a single
>>> attractive force. It is a composite force.
>> 
>> Note the experiment being done doesn’t use gravity as the attractive force.
>> Idiot. x
> 
> Hey moron woodworker, note that he didn’t use a single force to maintain orbit.  

Oh yes he is! 
You cannot read!

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> | On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:57:13 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>> | > On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:59:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> | > > 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. 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. 
>>>> | https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/A_X409P-bz0/w24-oVmHBQAJ
>>>> 
>>>> In the demonstration that I am working on, 
>>>> 1) I aim to show that it is possible to set up a magnet and orbiting ball
>>>> system that will maintain itself for hundreds of orbits.
>>> 
>>> Cut the string to the ball and see what happens. If the ball still
>>> maintaining orbit around the magnet then you got something..
>>> 
>>>> 2) I aim to characterize the system well enough to show how the gradual 
>>>> decay of the orbits of the ball are almost (but not quite) fully 
>>>> explainable by air resistance.
>>>> 3) By understanding the force vs. radius relationship, I aim to be able to
>>>> simulate the system's behavior such that, for instance, I can compare
>>>> decay rates of orbits of differing eccentricity, or to predict changes
>>>> of eccentricity with time. Intuitively, it *seems* to me that nearly
>>>> circular orbits should decay more slowly than eccentric orbits. It also
>>>> *seems* to me that the squared relationship of air resistance with 
>>>> velocity should result in eccentric orbits becoming more circular with 
>>>> time. Are my intuitions correct? Can I verify the results of my
>>>> intuitions and simulations with actual experiment?
>>>> 4) Several times during this project, I discovered that my initial 
>>>> intuitions were just plain wrong. I also discovered that other people
>>>> would notice things that I had *completely* overlooked.
>>>> a) Until I actually took measurements, I had assumed that the force
>>>> versus distance relationship between a magnet and a piece of steel
>>>> would follow something between an inverse-squared and inverse-cubed
>>>> relationship. I had *completely* overlooked how magnetic induction
>>>> would force the inverse exponent to a much higher power.
>>>> b) Until Ed Prochak pointed it out, I had *completely* overlooked that
>>>> the induction of eddy currents in the steel could represent a 
>>>> significant source of energy loss.
>>>> c) In other words, the collective insights of a group in general vastly
>>>> exceed the intelligence that a lone individual can bear on a
>>>> problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Ken. Please carefully read item 4c. Try to understand how 4c applies to 
>>>> your situation.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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