Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458428

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

Subject	Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
References	(14 earlier) <pdk2pg$1uki$4@gioia.aioe.org> <59654cf9-7f77-443f-85a3-727cf06a5efd@googlegroups.com> <pdkf1b$l55$2@gioia.aioe.org> <6eed1b60-270e-444d-b2f2-097c6c051abc@googlegroups.com> <pdpfdr$fo1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From	benj <benj@nobody.net>
Message-ID	<tD_LC.83019$RI2.14589@fx26.iad> (permalink)
Date	2018-05-19 15:09 -0400

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/19/2018 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:15:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:38:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "Newton didn’t provide any proof."
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results
>>>>>>>>>>>> that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sigh....The results of Newton’s equation includes both the
>>>>>>>>>>> attractive EM force and a high tangential motion of the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is what enable the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HOWEVER, you said this previously:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary
>>>>>>>>>>>> motions, as Newton showed long ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not
>>>>>>>>>>> stable.....the moon will crash into the sun eventually.
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why we need the repulsive force between the moon and
>>>>>>>>>>> the earth to prevent the moon crashing into the earth. This
>>>>>>>>>>> repulsive force is due to the earth and the moon are confined
>>>>>>>>>>> to follow the divergent structure of the ether (the E-Matrix).
>>>>>>>>>>> The unit vector of the attractive EM force is pointing to the
>>>>>>>>>>> center of the earth. The unit vector of the repulsive effect
>>>>>>>>>>> is point away from the earth at a right angle wrt the unit
>>>>>>>>>>> vector of the attractive force. The resulting unit vector
>>>>>>>>>>> is at a tangential direction and that’s why the moon is
>>>>>>>>>>> orbiting the earth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So which is it tangential motion (velocity) vector
>>>>>>>>>> or tangential Force vector?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems you want a tangential force. However, as Steve and I both
>>>>>>>>>> pointed out to you, Newton's theory of gravity with only a
>>>>>>>>>> radial force vector calculates the motions of the planets
>>>>>>>>>> very precisely. It is your tangential force that will cause
>>>>>>>>>> unstable orbits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please, do the math. Your idea does not work.
>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ken can’t do math.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he is relying on is his intuition that if there is an acceleration
>>>>>>>>> toward the center, this means the orbiting object will decrease its
>>>>>>>>> distance to the center and eventually make contact with the center.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You area lying sack of shit. I said if there is only attractive force
>>>>>>>> then there is no tangential orbiting motion and the two objects will
>>>>>>>> simply move toward each other until contact.....like a magnet attracts a steel ball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the
>>>>>>>>> orbit is stable, this tells him there is no acceleration toward the
>>>>>>>>> center. The idea that a stable orbit still involves an acceleration
>>>>>>>>> toward the center makes no sense to him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is an outright lie....I said no such thing. I said that a stable
>>>>>>>> orbit requires a centripetal force pulling the object toward the center
>>>>>>>> and a centrifugal force that causes the object to orbit around the center.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Centrifugal means “away from center”. Anything centrifugal has zero
>>>>>>> tangential component and cannot cause “around” motion. Around is
>>>>>>> tangential. I believe Ed P has been trying to make this basic point with
>>>>>>> you as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sigh.....here are the facts:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but those are not facts. Those are your assertions. They fly counter
>>>>> to all of physics, even high school physics. You somehow have come to the
>>>>> conclusion that if your intuition tells you something then it is a fact.
>>>>
>>>> Your assertions are wrong. Centripetal force do not exist without
>>>> centrifugal force. IOW, they both exist simultaneously to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>
>>> Flat out wrong. Read your copy of Halliday and Resnick. Or, if you want to
>>> be even funnier than you are now, tell me that Halliday and Resnick are
>>> wrong and you don’t have to read basic physics to understand it.
>>
>>
>> Your argument is based on the failed theory of SR and its failed definitions.
> 
> Ken you are arguing with Newtonian physics from the 1600s, two centuries
> prior to SR.
> 
> Only a fool would not bother to learn anything about physics and then make
> physics claims from just thinking about it. You’re a fool, Ken, and
> everyone knows that. All bluster, no meat

You are an idiot, Odd. You have totally forgotten about the imperial 
thinking of Archimedes Plutonium who discovered Triangular CO2 as the 
cause of climate change without ever entering a lab or making a 
measurement. This is Nobel level thinking, I'm sure. Maybe two!

Thread

csiph-web