Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463579

Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

From	Volney <volney@volney.invalid>
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	2018-07-05 21:07 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<phmfao$sdn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <df4e80a0-8d26-4e42-a736-4bd902a6f9f0@googlegroups.com> <phlnhi$gsf$1@dont-email.me> <54d959e7-9582-4a59-a5b8-7f8ce0d62e7d@googlegroups.com> <phlrl3$cu4$1@dont-email.me> <56914b76-2dd9-4c00-b09c-faf533184a48@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/5/2018 7:02 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:30:45 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/5/2018 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2018 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:29:51 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2018 9:20 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> No Sir, according to my theory: The continuous force of
>>>>>>> Gravity will win out eventually and cause the pendulum bob
>>>>>>> (ball) to fall into the center of the bowl. This is similar
>>>>>>> to the gravity well demonstation at the mall. When the coin
>>>>>>> is dropped into the bowl it will maintain an orbit for some
>>>>>>> short time and then eventually gravity wins out and causes
>>>>>>> the orbit of the coin to decline and drops into the gravity
>>>>>>> well at the center of the bowl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's FRICTION! The rolling friction of the coin and the
>>>>>> air friction cause the coin to lose energy. Listen, you can
>>>>>> HEAR the coin rolling, that is the result of energy lost by the
>>>>>> coin! The less friction there is, the longer the coin will
>>>>>> "orbit". If there was no friction, the coin would "orbit"
>>>>>> forever. Remember, Newton PROVED that with a single attractive
>>>>>> central force and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last
>>>>>> forever without external influence.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is external influence: gravity is continually pulling
>>>>> the pendulum toward the center.
>>>>
>>>> And it can be calculated, reduced and compensated for. That's why
>>>> he's using a fish line as long as possible, the longer it is the
>>>> less gravity influences the results. The gravity effects can be
>>>> calculated and measured (do the experiment without the magnet).
>>>> This is standard engineering, which you should know, if you are a
>>>> former engineer. Did you forget error analysis already?
>>>
>>> You said that there is no external influence....now you said you can
>>> calculate the external influence.
>>
>> No, I said "Newton PROVED that with a single attractive central force
>> and momentum, the orbits are stable and will last forever without
>> external influence." not that this setup has no external influence.
>> Right after a "If there was no friction" clause.
>> Read what was written.
> 
> Answer these questions:
> 1. Between the earth and the moon, how did the moon derived its tangential momentum to start with?

Depends on how it was formed. It would be really unusual for the mass 
that formed the moon NOT to have a net angular momentum (like a random 
number coming up exactly 0), so all that matters that there was momentum 
that is NOT 0.

Last I heard was the current best theory is the Earth collided with a 
small planet with a glancing blow which blasted a lot of mass into 
orbit. If so that explains the matter of the moon as well as the source 
of the orbital momentum.

> 2. The pull of gravity of the earth on the moon is continuous how does the moon maintains its tangential momentum?

Momentum is a conserved quantity. Unless there is something like 
friction/air resistance to dissipate it, it lasts forever. No friction 
or air resistance in space.

> If the tangential momentum is not maintained then the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.

Irrelevant since there is nothing to dissipate it so it's always there 
and won't go away. See Newton's Laws.

> 3. What is the cause of the attractive force of gravity?

Warped spacetime, apparently. Regardless, as long as we know HOW gravity 
behaves, knowing its cause doesn't really matter. It's like if you know 
nothing about electricity, but you do know flipping the switch causes 
the light to come on.

Anyway. my point stands. Newton proved stable orbits exist with only one 
attractive force. If you insist on composite forces, you'll have to find 
a flaw with Newton's proof and prove it wrong and you are correct. 
That's a pretty tall order, people have been analyzing Newton's proof 
for hundreds of years. Good luck!

Thread

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

csiph-web