info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?
1,768 views
Skip to first unread message
kenseto
May 4, 2018, 8:55:00 AM5/4/18
to
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows:
Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other.
A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction.
3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force.
4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows:
Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other.
A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows:
1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction.
3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force.
4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
May 4, 2018, 10:44:49 AM5/4/18
to
kenseto wrote
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
Because the mainstream physics community persistently holds on to its Purely ReligioNutterism Of No Aether No Medium Physics Dogma.
Requiring them to Fabricate many Religious Miracles like Gravitons
When In actuality Space Time is an Aether like field of a Black Hole.
Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
Requiring them to Fabricate many Religious Miracles like Gravitons
When In actuality Space Time is an Aether like field of a Black Hole.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
May 4, 2018, 11:16:19 AM5/4/18
to
Edward Prochak
May 4, 2018, 11:01:03 PM5/4/18
to
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when
> gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows:
>
> Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the
> curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General
> Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical
> GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
> failed to reconcile with each other.
>
> A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions
> of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether
> called the E-Matrix is formulated.
> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when
> gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows:
>
> Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the
> curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General
> Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical
> GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
> failed to reconcile with each other.
>
> A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions
> of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether
> called the E-Matrix is formulated.
> Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the
> moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector
> of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is
> pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector
> of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the
> tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of
> the attractive EM force.
>
> 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in
> the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The paper isn't much more than what you posted.
> moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector
> of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is
> pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector
> of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the
> tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of
> the attractive EM force.
>
> 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in
> the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
How about doing a sample calculation?
If you can.
Ed
Michael Moroney
May 4, 2018, 11:23:50 PM5/4/18
to
Using his "theory" (or any theory) to do any calculations is
far beyond his abilities.
Steve BH
May 4, 2018, 11:52:06 PM5/4/18
to
kenseto
May 6, 2018, 10:24:34 AM5/6/18
to
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:52:06 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> > This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows:
> >
> > Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other.
> >
> > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >
> > 1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
> >
> > 2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction.
> >
> > 3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force.
> >
> > 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>
> "The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force."
>
>
> 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.
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> > This question was asked in Quora and my answers are as follows:
> >
> > Gravity is not the result of gravitating objects following the curvature of the mathematical SPACETIME as asserted by General Relativity. Also it is not a force mediated by the hypothetical GRAVITONS. That’s why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics failed to reconcile with each other.
> >
> > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of the gravitating objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix is formulated. It turns out that gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >
> > 1. It is an attractive electromagnetic force due to that the gravitating objects, such as the earth and the moon, are expanding in the same direction in a structured aether called the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
> >
> > 2.The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the gravitating objects are confined to follow this divergent structure. This has a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon as they are expanding in the same direction.
> >
> > 3. Gravity is the combined result of the above opposing forces. That’s why the force of gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Also, the combination of these opposing forces will cause the moon to follow a curved path around the earth. The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force.
> >
> > 4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>
> "The unit vector of the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon is pointing toward the center of the earth and the unit vector of the repulsive force is pointing at right angle at the tangential direction with respect to the unit vector of the attractive EM force."
>
>
> A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary motions, as Newton showed long ago.
rotchm
May 6, 2018, 12:34:42 PM5/6/18
to
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
Edward Prochak
May 6, 2018, 8:43:02 PM5/6/18
to
So, Ken, where did Newton go wrong?
ed
kenseto
May 6, 2018, 10:23:07 PM5/6/18
to
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
rotchm
May 6, 2018, 11:43:14 PM5/6/18
to
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >
> > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
No answer?
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >
> > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there
> > are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an
> > error in his proof?
>
> Newton didn’t provide any proof.
Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim?
kenseto
May 7, 2018, 7:51:12 AM5/7/18
to
rotchm
May 7, 2018, 10:33:20 AM5/7/18
to
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
STILL No answer?
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there
are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an
error in his proof?
> Newton didn’t provide any proof.
Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
> > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim?
> Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force
Stop diverting and remain on topic: YOU claimed that
"If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
Edward Prochak
May 8, 2018, 9:51:31 AM5/8/18
to
You are losing what little credibility you have.
You have already crossed into negative territory
with many people.
Ed
Edward Prochak
May 8, 2018, 10:18:59 AM5/8/18
to
Quite simply you seem to be mixing momentum vectors and force vectors.
(My best guess, since my mind reading hat is STILL in the shop.)
Ed
kenseto
May 9, 2018, 9:03:55 AM5/9/18
to
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >
> > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> > >
> > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
> >
> > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > of action at a distance.
>
> Never read the Principe?
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >
> > > Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> > >
> > > Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
> >
> > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > of action at a distance.
>
So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
rotchm
May 9, 2018, 9:48:54 AM5/9/18
to
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
STILL No answer?
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there
are stable solutions. can you then show where he made an
error in his proof?
> Newton didn’t provide any proof.
Yes he did. But that's besides the point now. The question is, since YOU claimed that : "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
> > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim?
No answer?
> > Can you support your claim? can you prove your claim?
> Newton’s equation for gravity includes an attractive EM force
Rubbish & irrelevant to the discussion.
Stop diverting and remain on topic: YOU claimed that
Stop diverting and remain on topic: YOU claimed that
"If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
Odd Bodkin
May 9, 2018, 11:53:31 AM5/9/18
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>>>>
>>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
>>>>
>>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
>>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
>>>
>>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
>>> of action at a distance.
>>
>> Never read the Principe?
>
> So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
> and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>>>>
>>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
>>>>
>>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
>>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
>>>
>>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
>>> of action at a distance.
>>
>> Never read the Principe?
>
> So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
> and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
but Newton showed otherwise.
>
>>
>> You are losing what little credibility you have.
>> You have already crossed into negative territory
>> with many people.
>>
>> Ed
>
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kenseto
May 10, 2018, 11:41:17 AM5/10/18
to
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:53:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> >>>>
> >>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
> >>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
> >>>
> >>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> >>> of action at a distance.
> >>
> >> Never read the Principe?
> >
> > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
> > and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
>
> That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
> attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
> but Newton showed otherwise.
Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> >>>>
> >>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
> >>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
> >>>
> >>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> >>> of action at a distance.
> >>
> >> Never read the Principe?
> >
> > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
> > and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
>
> That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
> attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
> but Newton showed otherwise.
The Model Mechanics explanation is correct:
1. An attractive EM force between the moon and the earth derived from that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
2. The moon and the earth are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are moving in the same direction.
3. The above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
kenseto
May 10, 2018, 11:55:29 AM5/10/18
to
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:48:54 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>
> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> STILL No answer?
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:51:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 11:43:14 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>
> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> STILL No answer?
Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
The Model Mechanics explanation is correct:
1. An attractive EM force between the moon and the earth derived from that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
2. The moon and the earth are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are moving in the same direction.
3. The above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
>
The Model Mechanics explanation is correct:
1. An attractive EM force between the moon and the earth derived from that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
2. The moon and the earth are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are moving in the same direction.
3. The above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
>
rotchm
May 10, 2018, 12:59:24 PM5/10/18
to
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high
> enough orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
rotchm
May 10, 2018, 1:01:17 PM5/10/18
to
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
A lie.
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>with only attractive force and without proper high enough
> orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
Edward Prochak
May 11, 2018, 9:45:14 AM5/11/18
to
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
[]
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > > of action at a distance.
> >
> > Never read the Principe?
First why did you change my spelling? I originally wrote
> > > of action at a distance.
> >
> > Never read the Principe?
"Never read the Principia?"
(Maybe you trust spell check too much?)
>
> So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism
> for gravity and the observed action at a distance?
> I don’t think so.
The Principia includes proof that his equations produce the results
that match the collected data of orbital motions at that time.
Ed
Edward Prochak
May 11, 2018, 9:48:29 AM5/11/18
to
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:53:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
> > >>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
> > >>>
> > >>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > >>> of action at a distance.
> > >>
> > >> Never read the Principe?
> > >
> > > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
> > > and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
> >
> > That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
> > attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
> > but Newton showed otherwise.
>
>
> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough
> orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
Duh. We know this because of Newton!!!!!!!
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
> > >>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
> > >>>
> > >>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > >>> of action at a distance.
> > >>
> > >> Never read the Principe?
> > >
> > > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
> > > and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
> >
> > That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
> > attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
> > but Newton showed otherwise.
>
>
> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough
> orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
Show your calculations. Publish. Let's see how far you get.
Ed
kenseto
May 11, 2018, 10:52:12 AM5/11/18
to
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
>
> > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>
> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer: at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth. This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit.
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
>
> > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>
> Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
>
> > Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high
> > enough orbital velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
>
> That is NOT what you said above. So you are retracting your claim and admit that you lied?
kenseto
May 11, 2018, 11:01:14 AM5/11/18
to
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> []
> > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > > > of action at a distance.
> > >
> > > Never read the Principe?
>
> First why did you change my spelling? I originally wrote
> "Never read the Principia?"
> (Maybe you trust spell check too much?)
Sigh....The word “principe” was copied from your post on May 8. I see that you went back and changed to the correct spelling to “Principia”
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> []
> > > > Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
> > > > of action at a distance.
> > >
> > > Never read the Principe?
>
> First why did you change my spelling? I originally wrote
> "Never read the Principia?"
> (Maybe you trust spell check too much?)
>
> >
> > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism
> > for gravity and the observed action at a distance?
> > I don’t think so.
>
> 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.
> >
> > So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism
> > for gravity and the observed action at a distance?
> > I don’t think so.
>
> 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.
rotchm
May 11, 2018, 11:02:22 AM5/11/18
to
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >
> > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
>
> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to
Irrelevant. Stay on topic.
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >
> > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
>
> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to
> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>
> That exactly what I said....with just the attractive force
> the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
Again, handwaving claim. But you still havent supported your claim; its just handwaving. Provide proof.
> the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
With just F = (-1) 1/r², there are no stable orbits. Thats your claim. Prove it. Newton did provide a proof to the opposite that there are stable orbits. And his proof is sound, is ok and w/o any apparent errors. You however, refuce to provide a proof of your claim.
kenseto
May 11, 2018, 11:51:26 AM5/11/18
to
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:02:22 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >
> > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
> >
> > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to
>
> Irrelevant. Stay on topic.
Moron it is completely relevant.
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >
> > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
> >
> > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated to
>
> Irrelevant. Stay on topic.
rotchm
May 11, 2018, 11:09:38 PM5/11/18
to
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >
> > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
>
> Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated...
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> >
> > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
>
Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic.
Stay on topic:
PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.".
> to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer:
> at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth.
No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat".
There is "the existence of the sat", etc.
Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits.
That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that.
> a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.
Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat.
> It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit.
kenseto
May 12, 2018, 8:30:06 AM5/12/18
to
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >
> > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
> >
> > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated...
>
> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic.
> Stay on topic:
>
> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.".
>
>
> > to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer:
> > at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth.
> > This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity...
>
> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat".
> There is "the existence of the sat", etc.
>
> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
>
> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits.
> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that.
>
> > a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.
>
> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits.
> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat.
So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass. Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether called the E-Matrix. So you see if there in only an attractive force between the earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 10:52:12 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:41:17 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
> > >
> > > Yes, you refuse to provide support or proof of your assertion.
> >
> > Moron, why do you think that a satellite must be accelerated...
>
> Irrelevant "why" and "what I think...", since those are NOT the topic.
> Stay on topic:
>
> PROVE the claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.".
>
>
> > to a certain velocity to maintain a stable orbit? The answer:
> > at lower velocity, the satellite will simply fall back to the earth.
> > This proved that with just the attractive force of gravity...
>
> No, there is NOT "just with the force of gravity" in there. There are MANY other things YOU are including: There is "the low speed of the sat".
> There is "the existence of the sat", etc.
>
> Do you realise that your claim "If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable."
>
> means: If F = (-1)/r² then there are no stable orbits.
> That is what your claim means. We are then asking you to prove that.
>
> > a satellite will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.
>
> If the only force is gravity, then there are stable orbits.
> Of course the orbits (possible motions) depend on the mass, speed etc of the sat.
>
> > It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit.
>
> Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false.
rotchm
May 12, 2018, 10:01:13 AM5/12/18
to
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass.
Idiot ken, when you use the word "orbit" you are implicitly referring to a body orbiting. Since its a body, its a mass (and thus has a speed). The word "orbit" means we are talking about a mass & speed. We need not to "admit" it, since mass&speed are already there, as posited by you.
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass.
Or, purely mathematical, F = (-1)/r² = mr'' has stable solutions.
Are you sure you know the meaning of the words you use??
> Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of
> objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether
> called the E-Matrix.
You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions.
The proof that it does is independent of your matrix and of your gender and of the color of the sky. We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions as you claimed.
> So you see if there in only an attractive force between the
> earth and the moon, the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
> > > It must have a high enough velocity to maintain a stable orbit.
> >
> > Yes, but a velocity is NOT a force, thus your claim of “If there
> > is only attractive force then the system is not stable." if false.
>
>
> It is not a false statement.
an attractive force. But in your statement, you DONT ONLY have an attractive force (you have speeds too, and masses). Basically, your statement is saying:
If you have only an attractive force AND not only an attractive force, then blah-blah.
See, that sentence contains two contradictory axioms (premisses, declarations) . IOW, you are saying: Let the box have 3 pens and not 3 pens.
That just doesnt make sense!
> Newton’s gravity equation includes the effect of velocity
kenseto
May 12, 2018, 10:20:43 AM5/12/18
to
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass.
>
> Idiot ken, when you use the word "orbit" you are implicitly referring to a body orbiting. Since its a body, its a mass (and thus has a speed). The word "orbit" means we are talking about a mass & speed. We need not to "admit" it, since mass&speed are already there, as posited by you.
>
> Or, purely mathematical, F = (-1)/r² = mr'' has stable solutions.
>
>
> Are you sure you know the meaning of the words you use??
>
> > Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of
> > objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether
> > called the E-Matrix.
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions.
> The proof that it does is independent of your matrix and of your gender and of the color of the sky. We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions as you claimed.
I have no time for idiot like you.....David go suck egg.
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > So you admit that stable orbits depend on speed and mass.
>
> Idiot ken, when you use the word "orbit" you are implicitly referring to a body orbiting. Since its a body, its a mass (and thus has a speed). The word "orbit" means we are talking about a mass & speed. We need not to "admit" it, since mass&speed are already there, as posited by you.
>
> Or, purely mathematical, F = (-1)/r² = mr'' has stable solutions.
>
>
> Are you sure you know the meaning of the words you use??
>
> > Speed is related to momentum and momentum is the result of
> > objects are confined to the divergent structure of the aether
> > called the E-Matrix.
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions.
> The proof that it does is independent of your matrix and of your gender and of the color of the sky. We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions as you claimed.
rotchm
May 12, 2018, 11:06:01 AM5/12/18
to
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:20:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions.
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > You are claiming that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no stable solutions.
> > We are asking you to prove that F = (-1)/r² = r'' has no
> > stable solutions as you claimed.
>
> I have no time for idiot like you.....David go suck egg.
So once more idiot ken cowards away. So you are aware that you made a false claim, that you lied and that you are too much of a coward to admit it. Google kept a record.
> > stable solutions as you claimed.
>
> I have no time for idiot like you.....David go suck egg.
> > If you have only an attractive force AND not only an attractive
> > force, then blah-blah.
> >
> > See, that sentence contains two contradictory axioms
> > Actually, no it doesnt. (-1)/r² = r'' has no "v" in there.
> > Only the variable "r". Agree?
I asked you if the letter "r" and "v" are the same letters, and you say yes. That shows how really stupid you are. No wonder you cant even figure out how to talk into a microphone.
Volney
May 12, 2018, 3:11:05 PM5/12/18
to
repulsive forces, and an attractive force alone was unstable. You were
asked to prove that and you refused. This is what you wrote early in
this thread:
"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."
Why didn't you prove your claim?
BTW the sentence "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." is self-contradictory.
kenseto
May 12, 2018, 5:59:10 PM5/12/18
to
>
> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
Volney
May 12, 2018, 7:48:38 PM5/12/18
to
That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why?
>
>
>>
>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
>
>
> Explain why this is contradictory?
You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>
>>
>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
>
>
> Explain why this is contradictory?
is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
the attractive force. Which is it?
I assumed it was a typo or thinko, like when you used the word "sun"
instead of "earth" in this earlier quote of yours: > "If there is only
attractive force then the system is not stable.....the moon will crash
into the sun eventually.
You know what the meaning of the word "assume" is...
into the sun eventually.
rotchm
May 12, 2018, 7:59:40 PM5/12/18
to
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > Why didn’t provide prove of his equation?
>
> That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim.
> That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why?
Thats because idiot ken is an idiot. he is a fraud & a liar. He doenst understand the words he reads & uses, he cant to basic math and he is a stupid chink who cant even figure out how to turn on a microphone. He also watches japscat & gay videos and brags about it here (he hasn't lately though...). He is a very deranged person.
> On 5/12/2018 5:59 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > Why didn’t provide prove of his equation?
>
> That's what I asked you, why didn't you provide any proof of your claim.
> That's what rotcm asked as well. Instead of answering me you echo me? Why?
> > Explain why this is contradictory?
>
> You don't see it? It's
> You know what the meaning of the word "assume" is...
Michael Moroney
May 12, 2018, 8:54:57 PM5/12/18
to
Volney <vol...@volney.invalid> writes:
>>> BTW the sentence "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."
>>
>>
>>> BTW the sentence "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."
>>
>>
>> Explain why this is contradictory?
>You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
>the attractive force. Which is it?
No he doesn't see it. He doesn't understand vectors. He doesn't understand
>You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
>the attractive force. Which is it?
fourth grade math like how to evaluate the expression (-6)/(-2).
He doesn't understand that he doesn't understand those things.
How do you expect him to understand vectors with less than fourth grade
math ability?
Keith Stein
May 13, 2018, 3:36:34 AM5/13/18
to
On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
Hi Ken,
I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
better answers than any you've had so far.............
Not that i can answer it myself eh!
All i've got for you is another question:
What happened to your
"Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....."
I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with
most of the threads i start myself eh!
keith stein
> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
Hi Ken,
I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
better answers than any you've had so far.............
Not that i can answer it myself eh!
All i've got for you is another question:
What happened to your
"Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....."
I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with
most of the threads i start myself eh!
keith stein
kenseto
May 13, 2018, 9:40:45 AM5/13/18
to
> >> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
> >
> >
> > Explain why this is contradictory?
>
> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
> the attractive force. Which is it?
1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
rotchm
May 13, 2018, 9:53:24 AM5/13/18
to
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
> I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
> Is it still on your news ?
No, I have been removing some of his threads/posts.
> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
> I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
> Is it still on your news ?
> It's disappeared from mine,
> along with
> most of the threads i start myself eh!
kenseto
May 13, 2018, 9:57:22 AM5/13/18
to
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
> > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
>
> Hi Ken,
> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
> better answers than any you've had so far.............
> Not that i can answer it myself eh!
What’s wrong with my answers? You can’t dismiss my answers by handwaving.
> > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
>
> Hi Ken,
> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
> better answers than any you've had so far.............
> Not that i can answer it myself eh!
>
> All i've got for you is another question:
> What happened to your
>
> "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....."
>
> I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
> Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with
> most of the threads i start myself eh!
This thread is still on Google. Why don’t you gold starred the thread that you are interested.
> All i've got for you is another question:
> What happened to your
>
> "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....."
>
> I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
> Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with
> most of the threads i start myself eh!
Volney
May 13, 2018, 10:44:48 AM5/13/18
to
As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post
your proof here without launching satellites or whatever.
As to doing experiments, the universe has been "performing" an
experiment for about 4.5 billion years or so. So far, the moon hasn't
crashed into the earth and the earth hasn't plunged into the sun yet.
But who knows what will happen tomorrow, right?
>
>
>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Explain why this is contradictory?
>>
>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
>> the attractive force. Which is it?
>
> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force
>
>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Explain why this is contradictory?
>>
>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
>> the attractive force. Which is it?
>
> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a
right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's
contradictory.
Can a car drive due north and drive due east at the same time?
Keith Stein
May 13, 2018, 11:25:30 AM5/13/18
to
claiming things were on Google that anyone can check are not there?
On 10/05/2018 19:36, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 2:19:45 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 10/05/2018 16:23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>'
>>> There are two quite different meanings for the symbol 'c':
>>
>> No wonder i'm confused.
>
> That, you are...
>
>>> (1) the vacuum speed of light
>>> (2) the symmetry speed of geometry, including the Lorentz transform
>>
>> That's not a term i've heard before
>
> Thats because you are (still?) ignorant. You dont have enough
experience and you don not know how to use google.
Google still doesn't seem to know what "SYMMETRY SPEED OF GEOMETRY" is.
Maybe i doing it wrong eh!
ANYONE PLEASE HELP - POST ANY RELEVANT LINK from GOOGLE HERE:-
>> and even Google does not know what the
>> "symmetry speed of geometry"
>
> If you knew how to use google, you would find what it means. If you
were smart, you would figure out on your own what it means.
I must be very dumb eh!
>> And would i of been correct had i saidL
>> If the symmetry speed of geometry was infinite
>
> That would be a different geometry, a different model.
>
>> then the discrepancy between the clocks would be zero...."
but even a dummy like me can see that if the speed of the signal
connecting the clocks was infinite, the discrepancy between the clocks
would be zero eh!
> But actual clocks DO show a discrepancy , hence your proposed
> model (infinite SoL geometry) would not be an appropriate one.
>
>> And yet you can't show me one experiment were clocks differ
>> by so much as 1 micro second when reunited eh!
>
> There are zillions of such exps. Google is your friend; learn to use it!
I repeat:
"you can't show me one experiment were clocks differ
by so much as 1 micro second when reunited"
and if you Rotchm, OR INDEED ANYONE, can use google to prove this wrong,
then please post the relevant link here eh!
> Or, you can do the exp yourself. With modern atomic clocks (that you
can loan), do the exp on your own. Are u afraid of the results u would get?
I repeat:
"you can't show me one experiment were clocks differ
by so much as 1 micro second when reunited"
keith stein
Keith Stein
May 13, 2018, 11:43:02 AM5/13/18
to
On 13/05/2018 14:57, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
>>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
>> better answers than any you've had so far.............
>> Not that i can answer it myself eh!
>
> What’s wrong with my answers?
Well i have already told you that i don't believe in absolute velocity
> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
>>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
>> better answers than any you've had so far.............
>> Not that i can answer it myself eh!
>
> What’s wrong with my answers?
Ken, but if you tell me how it can be measured i might change my mind.
> You can’t dismiss my answers by handwaving.
Didn't mean to offend you Ken. I didn't tackle the question myself
because it's way outside my area of competence eh!
>> All i've got for you is another question:
>> What happened to your
>>
>> "Gerdanken that proves that clocks in relative motion....."
>>
>> I thought that was another very good thread of yours.
>> Is it still on your news ? It's disappeared from mine, along with
>> most of the threads i start myself eh!
>
> This thread is still on Google. Why don’t you gold starred the thread that you are interested.
disappear off my server, but thanks for trying to help. When i finish
this I'll stick "RADICAL COSMOLOGY" up once more. You could perhaps let
me know if it appears and disappears off your server. Thanks again.
keith stein
kenseto
May 13, 2018, 11:55:16 AM5/13/18
to
> As the stability of orbits is a mathematical concept, you could post
> your proof here without launching satellites or whatever.
Moron, my claim is that the moon cannot maintain a stable orbit around the earth if there is only an attractive force between them.
> your proof here without launching satellites or whatever.
The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because its high velocity. Newton’s gravity equation and DTG’s equation included both effects and that’s why they give correct predictions for the orbit of the moon.
>
> As to doing experiments, the universe has been "performing" an
> experiment for about 4.5 billion years or so. So far, the moon hasn't
> crashed into the earth and the earth hasn't plunged into the sun yet.
> But who knows what will happen tomorrow, right?
Moron, the attractive EM force between the earth and the moon (due to they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix) in combination with the repulsive effect between them caused by the confinement of them to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. The combination of these opposing attractive force/repulsive effect enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
> As to doing experiments, the universe has been "performing" an
> experiment for about 4.5 billion years or so. So far, the moon hasn't
> crashed into the earth and the earth hasn't plunged into the sun yet.
> But who knows what will happen tomorrow, right?
> >
> >>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Explain why this is contradictory?
> >>
> >> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
> >> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
> >> the attractive force. Which is it?
> >
> > Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
> > 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
> > 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> > 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
>
> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force
> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a
> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's
> contradictory.
kenseto
May 13, 2018, 12:04:36 PM5/13/18
to
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 11:43:02 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 13/05/2018 14:57, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> >>
> >> Hi Ken,
> >> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
> >> better answers than any you've had so far.............
> >> Not that i can answer it myself eh!
> >
> > What’s wrong with my answers?
>
> Well i have already told you that i don't believe in absolute velocity
> Ken, but if you tell me how it can be measured i might change my mind.
A paper on past experiments detecting absolute motion and proposed experiments to detect absolute motion is available in the following link:
> On 13/05/2018 14:57, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:36:34 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 04/05/2018 13:54, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> >>
> >> Hi Ken,
> >> I thought this was a very good question, deserving of a much
> >> better answers than any you've had so far.............
> >> Not that i can answer it myself eh!
> >
> > What’s wrong with my answers?
>
> Well i have already told you that i don't believe in absolute velocity
> Ken, but if you tell me how it can be measured i might change my mind.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
Volney
May 13, 2018, 1:26:00 PM5/13/18
to
in this thread. I was asking why you didn't try to prove your claim that
a repulsive force was necessary or that an attractive only force was
unstable. Can you prove your claim or not? Please answer yes or no.
>>>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain why this is contradictory?
>>>>
>>>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>>>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
>>>> the attractive force. Which is it?
>>>
>>> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
>>> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
>>> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
>>> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
>>
>> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force
>> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a
>> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's
>> contradictory.
>
> Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing effects. That’s why the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
force be both repulsive (opposite of the attractive force) and at right
angles to the attractive force. Can you please answer that question?
Odd Bodkin
May 13, 2018, 2:47:12 PM5/13/18
to
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:51:31 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:23:07 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is only attractive force then the system is not stable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Handwaving. Can you back that up with a proof?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
>>>>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton proved that with only an attractive force, there are stable
>>>>>> solutions. can you then show where he made an error in his proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton didn’t provide any proof. He didn’t understand the cause
>>>>> of action at a distance.
>>>>
>>>> Never read the Principe?
>>>
>>>>> of action at a distance.
>>>>
>>>> Never read the Principe?
>>>
>>> So are you claiming that the Principe explains the mechanism for gravity
>>> and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
>>
>>> and the observed action at a distance? I don’t think so.
>>
>> That isn’t what was discussed here. The proof was that with only an
>> attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
>> but Newton showed otherwise.
>
>
>> attractive force, there are stable orbits. This you claim is not possible,
>> but Newton showed otherwise.
>
>
> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital
> velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a
> velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability.
This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with
the only force being attractive.
Stop squirming, it’s unattractive.
> The Model Mechanics explanation is correct:
> 1. An attractive EM force between the moon and the earth derived from
> that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> 2. The moon and the earth are confined to the divergent structure of the
> E-Matrix as they are moving in the same direction.
> 3. The above opposing forces enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are losing what little credibility you have.
>>>> You have already crossed into negative territory
>>>> with many people.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kenseto
May 14, 2018, 8:59:18 AM5/14/18
to
1. The attractive EM force between the earth and the moon.
2. The repulsive effect between the earth and the moon because they are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This repulsive effect replaces the repulsive effect of the of the tangential motion.
3. The combination of the above two is gravity. Gravity is so weak compare to the EM force alone because the repulsive effect cancelled out some of the attractive EM force.
kenseto
May 14, 2018, 9:18:26 AM5/14/18
to
2. Now if one of the ball is fixed and the other is accelerated to a suitable velocity it will follow a n orbiting motion.
>
> >>>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Explain why this is contradictory?
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
> >>>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
> >>>> the attractive force. Which is it?
> >>>
> >>> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
> >>> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
> >>> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> >>> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
> >>
> >> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force
> >> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a
> >> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's
> >> contradictory.
> >
> > Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing effects. That’s why the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
>
> Again you are answering a question I didn't ask. Once again, how can a
> force be both repulsive (opposite of the attractive force) and at right
> angles to the attractive force. Can you please answer that question?
Odd Bodkin
May 14, 2018, 10:12:58 AM5/14/18
to
proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are
incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about.
People won’t talk with you about your concept of gravity because nobody
cares about it. Nobody cares about it because you are in competent in basic
physics and simple math.
If all you talked about were your own concepts, you would get only short,
dismissive replies or no replies at all — as you have noticed. When you
talk about classical physics or relativity or quantum mechanics, that’s
when you make one mistake upon another, and people talk to you about that.
This is when you realize you are cornered, out of your depth, and you try
to shift the conversation to your ideas, which nobody cares about.
kenseto
May 14, 2018, 4:51:34 PM5/14/18
to
If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other. No orbiting motion between them is observed. If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel:
1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion.
2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a tangential motion is applied to the ball.
3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball. So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.
>
> People won’t talk with you about your concept of gravity because nobody
> cares about it. Nobody cares about it because you are in competent in basic
> physics and simple math.
pnal...@gmail.com
May 14, 2018, 5:21:04 PM5/14/18
to
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> What I claimed:
> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim. Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can't follow along with Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
> What I claimed:
> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
Of course, if you can provide experimental evidence to the contrary, you might just win a Nobel prize...
kenseto
May 14, 2018, 5:39:20 PM5/14/18
to
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> > What I claimed:
> > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>
> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim. Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the effect of tangential motion.
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> > What I claimed:
> > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>
> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim. Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
Odd Bodkin
May 14, 2018, 6:04:58 PM5/14/18
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> What I claimed:
>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>>
>> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
>> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
>> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
>
> No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
> effect of tangential motion.
No. A force does not “include” motion.
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> What I claimed:
>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>>
>> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
>> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
>> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
>
> No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
> effect of tangential motion.
>
>>
>> Of course, if you can provide experimental evidence to the contrary, you
>> might just win a Nobel prize...
>
Odd Bodkin
May 14, 2018, 6:04:58 PM5/14/18
to
needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect
statement. You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive.
>
> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
> No orbiting motion between them is observed.
attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are
called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them.
> If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed
> maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel:
> 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion.
> 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a
> tangential motion is applied to the ball.
> 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease
> or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball.
> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.
>
>>
>> People won’t talk with you about your concept of gravity because nobody
>> cares about it. Nobody cares about it because you are in competent in basic
>> physics and simple math.
>
> I don’t care what you fanatic SRians belief.
SRians. There are a number of non-physicists who are anti-SRians, but who
cares what non-physicists think about anything in physics?
> Keep your head in the sand...that’s why for over 100 years you SR
> physicists still failed to come up with a viable theory of gravity.
Volney
May 14, 2018, 6:22:48 PM5/14/18
to
motions at the start. Same as gravity. If you have two masses they will
be attracted to each other and make contact if they don't have enough
angular momentum.
> 2. Now if one of the ball is fixed and the other is accelerated to a suitable velocity it will follow a n orbiting motion.
momentum in the objects' motions.
But you *still* didn't answer my question. Why is a repulsive force
necessary in these two situations? Where is it? There is only a
gravitational attractive force in the gravity example (and Newton proved
it was stable), and only attractive electric force in the charged
objects example. Electric force follows the same inverse square law that
gravity does so it, too, will be stable.
>
>>
>>>>>>>> BTW the sentence "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.” is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain why this is contradictory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't see it? It's obvious. In the same sentence you claim the force
>>>>>> is repulsive away from the earth and you claim it is at a right angle to
>>>>>> the attractive force. Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh....the forces acting on the moon are:
>>>>> 1. The attractive EM force pointing toward the center of the earth.
>>>>> 2. The repulsive effect due to the moon is confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
>>>>> 3. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't ask what your claim about gravity was. I asked how a force
>>>> could be simultaneously be repulsive away from the earth and be at a
>>>> right angle to the attractive force toward the earth all at once. It's
>>>> contradictory.
>>>
>>> Can’t you read? One is unattractive force and the other is a repulsive effect that reduces the strength of the attractive force. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing effects. That’s why the strength of gravity is so weak compare to the other forces.
>>
>> Again you are answering a question I didn't ask. Once again, how can a
>> force be both repulsive (opposite of the attractive force) and at right
>> angles to the attractive force. Can you please answer that question?
>
> Sigh....gravity is an attractive EM force less the repulsive effect that the gravitating objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That’s why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force.
>
at a right angle to the attractive force.
Do you even know what a force is? Do you understand that forces are a
vector with a magnitude and direction? Do you know which directions
attractive and repulsive forces act?
rotchm
May 14, 2018, 8:25:58 PM5/14/18
to
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 4:51:34 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> What I claimed:
> If there is only attractive force between two objects the
> system is not stable.
Yes thats what you keep claiming, yet you refuse to prove your claim.
> What I claimed:
> If there is only attractive force between two objects the
> system is not stable.
Your claim, stated mathematically (or physically) is that
-r^/r² = r'' has no stable solutions (where r^ = unit vector, '' second derivative,...). Newton proved that that eqs DOES have stable solutions.
Can you prove your claim?
> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge
kenseto
May 15, 2018, 12:08:32 PM5/15/18
to
With DTG the angular momentum is derived from the confinement of the moon and the earth to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
>
> > 2. Now if one of the ball is fixed and the other is accelerated to a suitable velocity it will follow a n orbiting motion.
>
> Well yes, that's pretty much saying the system has enough angular
> momentum in the objects’ motions.
>
> But you *still* didn't answer my question. Why is a repulsive force
> necessary in these two situations? Where is it? There is only a
> gravitational attractive force in the gravity example (and Newton proved
> it was stable), and only attractive electric force in the charged
> objects example. Electric force follows the same inverse square law that
> gravity does so it, too, will be stable.
kenseto
May 15, 2018, 12:12:12 PM5/15/18
to
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>> What I claimed:
> >>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
> >>
> >> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
> >> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
> >> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
> >
> > No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
> > effect of tangential motion.
>
> No. A force does not “include” motion.
Moron, in order to have angular motion you need an applied force.
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>> What I claimed:
> >>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
> >>
> >> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
> >> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
> >> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
> >
> > No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
> > effect of tangential motion.
>
> No. A force does not “include” motion.
kenseto
May 15, 2018, 12:36:36 PM5/15/18
to
>You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive.
>
>
> >
> > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
> > each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
> > No orbiting motion between them is observed.
>
> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are
> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them.
I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.
>
> >
> > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
> > each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
> > No orbiting motion between them is observed.
>
> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are
> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them.
>
> > If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed
> > maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel:
> > 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion.
> > 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a
> > tangential motion is applied to the ball.
> > 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease
> > or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball.
>
> That is incorrect.
>
> > So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.
>
> It is still not a force.
>
Odd Bodkin
May 15, 2018, 1:32:47 PM5/15/18
to
angular momentum. This is taught even in high school. Two objects passing
each other in uniform straight line motion — ie no forced involved at all —
still have angular momentum.
If you don’t know basic high school physics you will continue to make
idiotic remarks like yours above.
Odd Bodkin
May 15, 2018, 1:32:48 PM5/15/18
to
Secondly, anything tangential is NOT repulsive.
> That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from
> that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent
> structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit.
>
>> You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
>> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
>> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive.
>
> Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion
> because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination
> with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
>>> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
>>> No orbiting motion between them is observed.
>>
>> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
>> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them.
>
> I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not
> going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.
No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your
>
> I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not
> going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.
incorrect claims about Newtonian physics.
>
>>
>>> If you add tangential motion to one of them that balls can indeed
>>> maintain an orbiting motion. A good example is the roulette wheel:
>>> 1. The ball will fall into the gravity well of the wheel without tangential motion.
>>> 2. The ball is able to maintain an orbit motion around the wheel when a
>>> tangential motion is applied to the ball.
>>> 3. BTW increase or decrease the tangential motion will cause a decrease
>>> or increase the attractive force of the gravity on the ball.
>>
>> That is incorrect.
>
> You are full of shit.
>
>>
>>> So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.
>>
>> It is still not a force.
>>
>
> Tangential motion requires an applied force
> and that applied force must be continuous to maintain a stable orbit.
> ....the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> of the E-Matrix can be considered as continuous repulsive effect between
> the earth and the moon.
>
Odd Bodkin
May 15, 2018, 1:32:48 PM5/15/18
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What I claimed:
>>>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
>>>> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
>>>> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
>>>
>>> No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
>>> effect of tangential motion.
>>
>> No. A force does not “include” motion.
>
> Moron, in order to have angular motion you need an applied force.
That is incorrect. You are lacking even in high school physics basics.
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What I claimed:
>>>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
>>>> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
>>>> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
>>>
>>> No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
>>> effect of tangential motion.
>>
>> No. A force does not “include” motion.
>
> Moron, in order to have angular motion you need an applied force.
Ursula Vankeuren
May 15, 2018, 3:29:24 PM5/15/18
to
Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Sigh....in order to have angular momentum you have to apply a force at
>> right angle wrt the attractive EM force.
>
> That is factually incorrect. No tangential force is required for nonzero
> angular momentum. This is taught even in high school. Two objects
> passing each other in uniform straight line motion — ie no forced
> involved at all — still have angular momentum.
> If you don’t know basic high school physics you will continue to make
> idiotic remarks like yours above.
Angular momentum relates to parts involved into A system, my friend.
>> Sigh....in order to have angular momentum you have to apply a force at
>> right angle wrt the attractive EM force.
>
> That is factually incorrect. No tangential force is required for nonzero
> angular momentum. This is taught even in high school. Two objects
> passing each other in uniform straight line motion — ie no forced
> involved at all — still have angular momentum.
> If you don’t know basic high school physics you will continue to make
> idiotic remarks like yours above.
Unrelated parts are completely irrelevant. Dr. Kenseto is pretty much
consistent.
kenseto
May 15, 2018, 4:38:38 PM5/15/18
to
>
> > That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from
> > that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent
> > structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit.
> >
> >> You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
> >> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
> >> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive.
> >
> > Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion
> > because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination
> > with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
> >>> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
> >>> No orbiting motion between them is observed.
> >>
> >> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
> >> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. S The two objects are
> >> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them.
> >
> > I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not
> > going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.
>
> No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your
> incorrect claims about Newtonian physics.
kenseto
May 15, 2018, 4:41:41 PM5/15/18
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What I claimed:
> >>>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
> >>>> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
> >>>> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
> >>>
> >>> No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
> >>> effect of tangential motion.
> >>
> >> No. A force does not “include” motion.
> >
> > Moron, in order to have angular motion you need an applied force.
>
> That is incorrect. You are lacking even in high school physics basics.
Moron you do need a continuous application of a repulsive effect to maintain a stable orbit.
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:51:34 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What I claimed:
> >>>>> If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, you can stop right there, because this is an incorrect claim.
> >>>> Newton showed this to be incorrect, but you can’t follow along with
> >>>> Newton, so naturally, you are confused.
> >>>
> >>> No, idiot.....Newton’s gravity force includes an attractive force and the
> >>> effect of tangential motion.
> >>
> >> No. A force does not “include” motion.
> >
> > Moron, in order to have angular motion you need an applied force.
>
> That is incorrect. You are lacking even in high school physics basics.
rotchm
May 15, 2018, 4:50:22 PM5/15/18
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 4:38:38 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I said repulsive effect
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:32:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
yes u did. And that means a repulsive force.
> In any case the attractive EM force is continuous
> and therefore it needs a continuous repulsive effect
And therefore your statement is wrong because it doesnt need a repulsive force. An attractive force, w/o any other forces, can generate stable orbits; there are stable solutions. Newton showed it in a few lines of simple math. We can prove it in one line of simple math.
Can u prove that its doesnt have stable orbits as you claim?
> Then go fuck yourself.
That's your scientific argument?
> You are nothing but an uninformed woodworker.
Michael Moroney
May 15, 2018, 5:15:09 PM5/15/18
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >>>>> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital
>> >>>>> velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
>> >>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a
>> >>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability.
>> >>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with
>> >>>> the only force being attractive.
>> >>> We are talking about my concept of gravity:
>> >> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton
>> >> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are
>> >> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about.
>> > What I claimed:
>> > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>> You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also
>> needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect
>> statement.
>I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect
Repulsive "effect"? You said repulsive force. You are trying to weasel out
>On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>> > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:12:58 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >>>>> Moron, with only attractive force and without proper high enough orbital
>> >>>>> velocity will cause the moon crash into the earth.
>> >>>> There is only one force and it is attractive. Tangential motion is not a
>> >>>> force. You stated earlier that a repulsive force is required for stability.
>> >>>> This is not true, and Newton proved that a stable orbit is possible with
>> >>>> the only force being attractive.
>> >>> We are talking about my concept of gravity:
>> >> No we are not. We are talking about Newtonian mechanics and what Newton
>> >> proved in Principia. You made claims about Newtonian mechanics that are
>> >> incorrect and THAT is what we are talking about.
>> > What I claimed:
>> > If there is only attractive force between two objects the system is not stable.
>> You claimed more than this. You claimed that a repulsive force is also
>> needed to account for why the orbit is stable. That is an incorrect
>> statement.
>I said that in addition to the attractive force, a repulsive effect
of your earlier claim.
is also needed to maintain a stable orbit. That is a correct statement.
No, it is not. Newton proved orbits were stable with only a repulsive force.
> Without the repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are
>confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix the moon will
>not be able to keep a stable orbit.
>>You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
>> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
>> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive.
>Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion
>because that's why you understand. The repulsive effect in
>combination with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion.
"Repulsive effect" is just nonsense words you invented because you were
caught being wrong.
>> > I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
>> > each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
>> > No orbiting motion between them is observed.
>> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
>> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. The two objects are
>I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not going
>to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.
>> > So your argument that tangential motion is not a force is an empty argument.
>> It is still not a force.
>Tangential motion requires an applied force and that applied force must be
>continuous to maintain a stable orbit.....
No, it doesn't. A situation where two masses are heading in straight lines
>> It is still not a force.
>Tangential motion requires an applied force and that applied force must be
>continuous to maintain a stable orbit.....
toward each other, but offset slightly, does not involve any forces other than
the attractive force of gravity. The objects may form a stable orbit since they
"miss" each other. Once an orbit is formed, there are NO forces involved other
than the attractive force of gravity. Newton proved that.
Odd Bodkin
May 15, 2018, 5:16:31 PM5/15/18
to
required. A stable orbit automatically has a net acceleration toward the
center. As Newton showed, this net acceleration toward the center does NOT
entail diminution of distance.
> The DTG description of gravity fits this perfectly and that’s why DTG is a superior theory.
>
>>
>>> That is a correct statement. Without the repulsive effect derived from
>>> that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent
>>> structure of the E-Matrix the moon will not be able to keep a stable orbit.
>>>
>>>> You later stopped mentioning the repulsive force (without
>>>> retracting the claim) and started talking about tangential motion being
>>>> required. But tangential motion is not a force, nor is it repulsive.
>>>
>>> Why should I retract what is correct? I mentioned the tangential motion
>>> because that’s why you understand. The repulsive effect in combination
>>> with the attractive EM force give you the tangential motion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I stand by this statement. Two balls with opposite charge will attract
>>>>> each other and continue to do so until they are contact with each other.
>>>>> No orbiting motion between them is observed.
>>>>
>>>> That is incorrect. Hydrogen is an example of two oppositely charged objects
>>>> attracting each other and yet not coming into contact. S The two objects are
>>>> called proton and electron. I’m sure you’ve heard of them.
>>>
>>> I my theory the charge of a particle changes every 90 degree. I am not
>>> going to explain it here....read Chapter 3 of my book.
>>
>> No one is interested in your ideas. What people are talking about are your
>> incorrect claims about Newtonian physics.
>
> Then go fuck yourself. You are nothing but an uninformed woodworker.
physics.
And you make the mistake of countless stupid comments about Newtonian
physics which you know nothing about.
Odd Bodkin
May 15, 2018, 5:16:32 PM5/15/18
to
never learned.
Tangential motion is not an applied force nor does it require an applied
force. Tangential motion is in no way a “repulsive effect”.
kenseto
May 16, 2018, 7:57:52 AM5/16/18
to
Since there is no string attached the moon to the earth, the mechanism that enables the moon to orbit around the earth is posited as follows:
1. The universe is expanding.
2. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix and this gives rise to a continuous attractive EM force between them as the universe expands.
3. As the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction, they are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix and this gives rise to a continuous repulsive effect between them.
4. Gravity is the combine result of the above opposing effects.
Odd Bodkin
May 16, 2018, 11:23:34 AM5/16/18
to
radially outward from the center and has no component in the tangential
direction. Anything that is tangential is by definition perpendicular to
that and has no component in the radially outward direction.
> For example: An object on the end of a string can only maintain a
> continuous orbiting motion by the continuous application of an attractive
> force along the string and at the same time the application of a
> repulsive effect to maintain its tangential motion.
the point. That’s what Newton showed. What agent do you think is pulling
outward on the object. Forces have causes. The inward force on the object
is caused by the string being attached to the object and pulling on it. So
what’s the cause of this outward force you’re imagining?
If there were an outward force pulling in the object, the inward and
outward forces would cancel and there would be no net force inward or
outward. Then there would be no net acceleration inward or outward. But
there IS an acceleration inward. Stable circular motion ALWAYS involves an
acceleration inward. This is what’s taught in high school physics which you
never learned.
>
> Since there is no string attached the moon to the earth, the mechanism
> that enables the moon to orbit around the earth is posited as follows:
> 1. The universe is expanding.
> 2. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the
> E-Matrix and this gives rise to a continuous attractive EM force between
> them as the universe expands.
> 3. As the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction, they
> are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix and this
> gives rise to a continuous repulsive effect between them.
> 4. Gravity is the combine result of the above opposing effects.
>
>
kenseto
May 16, 2018, 12:00:04 PM5/16/18
to
The centripetal force is pointing toward the center. The combination of the centrifugal and centripetal forces causes the orbiting motion. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> > For example: An object on the end of a string can only maintain a
> > continuous orbiting motion by the continuous application of an attractive
> > force along the string and at the same time the application of a
> > repulsive effect to maintain its tangential motion.
>
> There is no outward force on the object at the end of the string.
Sure there is....the centrifugal force have outward force on the object. That’s why the object is able to maintain a circular motion.
> > For example: An object on the end of a string can only maintain a
> > continuous orbiting motion by the continuous application of an attractive
> > force along the string and at the same time the application of a
> > repulsive effect to maintain its tangential motion.
>
> There is no outward force on the object at the end of the string.
>That’s
> the point. That’s what Newton showed. What agent do you think is pulling
> outward on the object. Forces have causes.
> The inward force on the object
> is caused by the string being attached to the object and pulling on it. So
> what’s the cause of this outward force you’re imagining?
>
> If there were an outward force pulling in the object, the inward and
> outward forces would cancel and there would be no net force inward or
> outward. Then there would be no net acceleration inward or outward. But
> there IS an acceleration inward. Stable circular motion ALWAYS involves an
> acceleration inward. This is what’s taught in high school physics which you
> never learned.
Volney
May 16, 2018, 12:37:34 PM5/16/18
to
> The centripetal force is pointing toward the center. The combination of the centrifugal and centripetal forces causes the orbiting motion. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>
>>> For example: An object on the end of a string can only maintain a
>>> continuous orbiting motion by the continuous application of an attractive
>>> force along the string and at the same time the application of a
>>> repulsive effect to maintain its tangential motion.
>>
>> There is no outward force on the object at the end of the string.
>
> Sure there is....the centrifugal force have outward force on the object. That’s why the object is able to maintain a circular motion.
>
>> That’s
>> the point. That’s what Newton showed. What agent do you think is pulling
>> outward on the object. Forces have causes.
>
> Moron, The centrifugal force is pulling the object outward. In my theory, this is the repulsive effect caused by the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they expanded in the same direction in the E-Matrix.
>
>> The inward force on the object
>> is caused by the string being attached to the object and pulling on it. So
>> what’s the cause of this outward force you’re imagining?
>
> This is the centripetal force. cause by the tension of the string pulling on the object. In my theory this is the attractive force between the earth and the moon because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix.
>
>>
>> If there were an outward force pulling in the object, the inward and
>> outward forces would cancel and there would be no net force inward or
>> outward. Then there would be no net acceleration inward or outward. But
>> there IS an acceleration inward. Stable circular motion ALWAYS involves an
>> acceleration inward. This is what’s taught in high school physics which you
>> never learned.
>
> You are so fucking stupid....I suggest that you go make some toys instead of trying to argue with a knowledgible person like me.
force, or how to spell "knowledgeable"?
rotchm
May 16, 2018, 12:57:05 PM5/16/18
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 12:00:04 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:23:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Hey moron, the centrifugal force that causes the tangential
> motion have outward component. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
No ken, it is you that is "fucking stupid". There is no such force
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:23:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Hey moron, the centrifugal force that causes the tangential
> motion have outward component. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
called "centrifugal force"; its not a force and is a gross abuse of language. They highschool physics they even teach you that "centrifugal force" does not exist. Have you ever taken a basic physics course??
Look, taken from [dont matter] : "centripetal force is an actual force, centrifugal force is defined as an apparent force...". Or,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
> The combination of the centrifugal and centripetal forces
> causes the orbiting motion.
> > There is no outward force on the object at the end of the string.
>
> Sure there is....
> the centrifugal force have outward force on the object.
That’s why the object is able to maintain a circular motion.
> > what’s the cause of this outward force you’re imagining?
>
> This is the centripetal force.
*:s
>
> This is the centripetal force.
> > This is what’s taught in high school physics which you never learned.
>
> You are so fucking stupid....
> I suggest that you go make some toys instead of trying to argue
> with a knowledgible person like me.
Odd Bodkin
May 16, 2018, 1:39:11 PM5/16/18
to
Newtonian mechanics, you would know that “centrifugal force” is fictional.
There is no real force called centrifugal force.
If there were then there would be a balance between centripetal and
centrifugal forces and the net acceleration would be zero. But the
acceleration in a stable orbit is never zero.
You do not know the basics and have wasted your time.
>
>> That’s
>> the point. That’s what Newton showed. What agent do you think is pulling
>> outward on the object. Forces have causes.
>
> Moron, The centrifugal force is pulling the object outward. In my theory,
> this is the repulsive effect caused by the earth and the moon are
> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they
> expanded in the same direction in the E-Matrix.
>
>> The inward force on the object
>> is caused by the string being attached to the object and pulling on it. So
>> what’s the cause of this outward force you’re imagining?
>
> This is the centripetal force. cause by the tension of the string pulling
> on the object. In my theory this is the attractive force between the
> earth and the moon because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix.
>
>>
>> If there were an outward force pulling in the object, the inward and
>> outward forces would cancel and there would be no net force inward or
>> outward. Then there would be no net acceleration inward or outward. But
>> there IS an acceleration inward. Stable circular motion ALWAYS involves an
>> acceleration inward. This is what’s taught in high school physics which you
>> never learned.
>
> You are so fucking stupid....I suggest that you go make some toys instead
> of trying to argue with a knowledgible person like me.
you’ve read nothing. Knowledge comes from reading not from your
imagination.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Since there is no string attached the moon to the earth, the mechanism
>>> that enables the moon to orbit around the earth is posited as follows:
>>> 1. The universe is expanding.
>>> 2. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the
>>> E-Matrix and this gives rise to a continuous attractive EM force between
>>> them as the universe expands.
>>> 3. As the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction, they
>>> are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix and this
>>> gives rise to a continuous repulsive effect between them.
>>> 4. Gravity is the combine result of the above opposing effects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
Edward Prochak
May 16, 2018, 3:34:46 PM5/16/18
to
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:
[]
> >
> > A purely attractive force serves to explain all planetary
> > motions, as Newton showed long ago.
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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
>
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
Odd Bodkin
May 16, 2018, 3:46:32 PM5/16/18
to
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. 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. So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits.
Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
physics.
Odd Bodkin
May 16, 2018, 4:37:57 PM5/16/18
to
deceleration. This comes from his gut feel that the accelerator pedal in
his car tells his acceleration and when he takes his Foyt off the
accelerator he slows down.
This is what we’re dealing with.
kenseto
May 16, 2018, 5:17:14 PM5/16/18
to
> 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.
So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits.
>
> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
> physics.
Odd Bodkin
May 16, 2018, 5:38:31 PM5/16/18
to
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.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned to you by several people, “centrifugal
force” is a fiction. There is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics shows how
stable orbits happen without anything like a centrifugal force involved.
You never learned this. You never read your basic book on physics by
Halliday and Resnick.
>
> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
>> involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
>> whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
>> notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits.
>>
>> Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
>> physics.
>
> Fucking liar.
>
Steve BH
May 16, 2018, 6:08:58 PM5/16/18
to
> So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
> > involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
> > whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
> > notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits.
> >
> > Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
> > physics.
>
> Fucking liar.
Edward Prochak
May 16, 2018, 6:22:08 PM5/16/18
to
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
> > involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
> > whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
> > notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits.
> >
> > Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
> > physics.
>
> Fucking liar.
Ken, you are the one clearly confused by your own comments.
> > So rather than learn why a stable orbit still
> > involves an acceleration toward the center, he’d rather claim to reinvent a
> > whole new physics that does make sense to him and involves no confusing
> > notions like centripetal acceleration in stable orbits.
> >
> > Ken would rather say Newtonian physics is wrong rather than learn Newtonian
> > physics.
>
> Fucking liar.
Sorry but I am too polite to call you a liar. 8^P
Ed
Michael Moroney
May 16, 2018, 8:20:02 PM5/16/18
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
No, Stupid Ken. It is you who is lying. This is what you wrote early on:
>On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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 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."
>Fucking liar.
Named Ken Seto.
kenseto
May 17, 2018, 8:18:20 AM5/17/18
to
1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one get orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as physicists assert.
3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction.
kenseto
May 17, 2018, 8:23:30 AM5/17/18
to
1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one gets orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as physicists assert.
3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction.
>
>
>
>
rotchm
May 17, 2018, 8:26:32 AM5/17/18
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> Sigh.....here are the facts:
> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> Sigh.....here are the facts:
> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
Is Cp force a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
> get orbiting motion.
Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
> That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as
> physicists assert.
What is the definition of cf force?
kenseto
May 17, 2018, 8:31:08 AM5/17/18
to
Here are the facts
1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one gets orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion. That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as physicists assert.
3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction.
>
> >
> >
3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal force completely and cause the orbiting object to break free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential direction.
>
> >
> >
Odd Bodkin
May 17, 2018, 10:15:16 AM5/17/18
to
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.
As I said, you would rather declare Newtonian physics wrong than learn
Newtonian physics. You just proved that by doing it.
kenseto
May 17, 2018, 12:49:21 PM5/17/18
to
kenseto
May 17, 2018, 12:55:15 PM5/17/18
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Sigh.....here are the facts:
> > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
>
> Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> Is Cp force a radial force?
Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Sigh.....here are the facts:
> > 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
>
> Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> Is Cp force a radial force?
> Does it have a tangential component?
> Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
>
> > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
> > get orbiting motion.
>
> What is a cf force?
> Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
rotchm
May 17, 2018, 1:18:04 PM5/17/18
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:55:15 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> > Is Cp force a radial force?
>
> Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
That is not what I asked. I asked is cp force a radial force.
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> > Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> > Is Cp force a radial force?
>
> Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
yes or no? *Then* you can detail your response. But as is, my question is a 'yes or no' question, so answer only with a yes or no.
> > Does it have a tangential component?
> > Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
>
> That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force.
didn't answer.
> > > 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
> > > get orbiting motion.
> >
> > What is a cf force?
> > Is it a radial force?
> Does it have a tangential component?
> > Perhaps then yous are using different definitions?
> > What is the definition of cf force?
Odd Bodkin
May 17, 2018, 1:44:15 PM5/17/18
to
kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh.....here are the facts:
>>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
>>
>> Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
>> Is Cp force a radial force?
>
> Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
>
>> Does it have a tangential component?
>> Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
>
> That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force.
>
>>
>>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
>>> get orbiting motion.
>>
>> What is a cf force?
>> Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
>
> cf force in combination with cp force do have tangential component.
And just above you said the combination was a radial force. A radial force
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh.....here are the facts:
>>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
>>
>> Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
>> Is Cp force a radial force?
>
> Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
>
>> Does it have a tangential component?
>> Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
>
> That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force.
>
>>
>>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
>>> get orbiting motion.
>>
>> What is a cf force?
>> Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
>
> cf force in combination with cp force do have tangential component.
has no tangential component. Basic vectors.
>
>>
>>
>>> That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as
>>> physicists assert.
>>
>> Perhaps then yous are using different definitions?
>> What is the definition of cf force?
>
Odd Bodkin
May 17, 2018, 1:44:15 PM5/17/18
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.
Edward Prochak
May 18, 2018, 5:37:03 PM5/18/18
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:31:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion?
>
> You don’t know the facts so you are babbling.
I only respond to acknowledge that you insulting me is
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:17:14 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > So you never heard of Newton’s first law of motion?
>
> You don’t know the facts so you are babbling.
not a valid argument.
> Here are the facts
> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
Newton proved orbital motion requires only the
centripetal force.
> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force
> one gets orbiting motion.
orbital motion follows the change in velocity (a vector)
due to the gravitational (centripetal) force, resulting in
Keplerian orbital path.
> That means that centrifugal force contributes to orbiting motion.
> That means that centrifugal force is real not fictitious as
> physicists assert.
Using Newton's equations physicists predict orbital motions
successfully. That is the real test of Newton's theory.
> 3. Too much centrifugal force will cancel out the centripetal
> force completely and cause the orbiting object to break
> free from orbit. In the case of a stone orbiting at the
> end of a string, too much centrifugal force will break
> the string and cause the stone to go off in a tangential
> direction.
same. The fictitious centrifugal "force" arises from the inertia
of the stone, not from any "force". It is not felt by the stone,
but it is felt at the end of the string at your fingers.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit.
> > > 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.
> >
And here is the key point:
it is not directed in a tangent to the motion.
Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center.
So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing
that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but
it points the wrong way!!!!!!
Ed
Odd Bodkin
May 18, 2018, 5:50:46 PM5/18/18
to
string if not a centrifugal force pulling the object outward? Ken has never
learned the answer. The answer is that the string is the agent that
provides the centripetal force on the object, producing the centripetal
acceleration that is required for circular motion. Since that acceleration
is proportional to v^2, then the faster the object goes, the more force the
string has to provide to produce the increased centripetal acceleration.
The string has a limit to how much force it can provide before it breaks.
When it breaks, there is no longer ANY force on the object (certainly not
any centrifugal force) which is why it continues in uniform straight line
motion from that point.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> NO, as I quoted you above, you [Ken] said a Force tangent to the orbit.
>
> And here is the key point:
> it is not directed in a tangent to the motion.
> Centrifugal force is outward direction, away from the center.
>
> So it makes your argument weaker, since you are arguing
> that centrifugal force makes the circular motion, but
> it points the wrong way!!!!!!
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
kenseto
May 19, 2018, 8:15:34 AM5/19/18
to
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:44:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sigh.....here are the facts:
> >>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> >> Is Cp force a radial force?
> >
> > Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
> >
> >> Does it have a tangential component?
> >> Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
> >
> > That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force.
> >
> >>
> >>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
> >>> get orbiting motion.
> >>
> >> What is a cf force?
> >> Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
> >
> > cf force in combination with cp force do have tangential component.
>
> And just above you said the combination was a radial force. A radial force
> has no tangential component. Basic vectors.
You are wrong. It has. That’s why the stone is able to maintain a circular motion.
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:18:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sigh.....here are the facts:
> >>> 1. Centripetal force alone no orbiting motion.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Why do you refuse to prove your claim?
> >> Is Cp force a radial force?
> >
> > Yes CP force in combination with the CF force is a radial force.
> >
> >> Does it have a tangential component?
> >> Can you give an example where there is cp force alone?
> >
> > That’s my point, CP force do not exist without CF force.
> >
> >>
> >>> 2. Centripetal force in combination with centrifugal force one
> >>> get orbiting motion.
> >>
> >> What is a cf force?
> >> Is it a radial force? Does it have a tangential component?
> >
> > cf force in combination with cp force do have tangential component.
>
> And just above you said the combination was a radial force. A radial force
> has no tangential component. Basic vectors.
kenseto
May 19, 2018, 8:17:31 AM5/19/18
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages