Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463634

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	2018-07-06 20:41 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<phok6e$1a4n$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <df4e80a0-8d26-4e42-a736-4bd902a6f9f0@googlegroups.com> <phlnhi$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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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?

Answered in your freshman book, Halliday & Resnick. 

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

Answered in your freshman book. 

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

Wrong. 

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

Answered in your freshman book. 

> 
>> 
>> Also gravity by itself would be OK since it is a conservative force.
>> You'd get a weird orbit from both the magnet and gravity if there was no
>> friction. But friction is the killer.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your hypothesis is no good because you haven't disproved
>>>>>> Newton's proof.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why do I need to disprove Newton when my theory said that gravity
>>>>> in Newton’s theory is a composite force?
>>>> 
>>>> Because Newton PROVED that gravity was a single force and a single
>>>> force and momentum is all that is needed to form stable orbits. You
>>>> need to disprove the “single force" bit, which you haven't.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Newton didn’t PROVED anything.
>> 
>> Yes he did. He PROVED that a single attractive central force such as 
>> gravity would lead to stable orbits.
>> 
>>> He failed to recognize that gravity is a composite force
>> 
>> Assertion is not proof of anything, you would have to PROVE that 
>> assertion to disprove Newton. His force F=GMm/r^2 is a single attractive 
>> force (only one term), and is not composite.
>> 
>>> so he assumed
>> that gravity is a single attractive force.
>> 
>> No assumption, there is only one term there.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

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

csiph-web