Re: The cause of gravity

[Michael Moroney]

On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> Gravity is a composite force as follows:

<snip crap>

Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
We've understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.

[Ken Seto]

Gravity is a composite force as follows:

1. It is an attractive EM force derived from the interacting objects are moving in the same direction as the universe expands. For example, the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them and this is a component of gravity.

2. But an attractive force alone is not able the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth for billions of years. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. Both the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.This creates a repulsive effect between them and this repulsive effect is called the CRE force.

3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined r/esult of the attractive EM force and the repulsive effect of the CRE force between them.

4. A paper on the above concept of gravity is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

[Dono.]

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:08:50 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined r/esult of the attractive EM force

Ken Shito,

The only good thing about your dementia is that you are supplying never ending entertainment.

[Mitch Muma]

Ken Seto wrote:

> Gravity is a composite force as follows:

> 1. It is an EM attractive force derived from the interacting objects are

> moving in the same direction as the universe expands. For example, the
> earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix
> as the universe expands. This causes an attractive force between them
> and this is a component of gravity.

you repulsive bag of shit, you steal theories with arms and legs. Have
you no shame?? The only reason you are lurking here is to steal theories
from other people. You shit. I spit on shit.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Stupid Mike, you're outdated. Your idiot guru has shown
what you're saying is just a common sense prejudice.

[Ken Seto]

Moron, what part of my theory is not true? A single attractive force will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Ken Seto]

Your attitude is the reason why you physicists failed to come up with a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.
Gee you physicists are so fucking stupid.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
more?

Just to remind you of something: Just because you do not understand
something does not mean it’s wrong. It just means you’re uneducated in this
subject. Completely uneducated and unskilled.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >>
> >> <snip crap>
> >>
> >> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> >> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
> >
> > Moron, what part of my theory is not true? A single attractive force
> > will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >
> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
> more?

Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value. Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>>>
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>
>>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>>>
>>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true? A single attractive force
>>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>
>> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
>> more?
>
> Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.
> Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.

You are also unique in believing that physics textbooks and physics
instruction on these matters are of no value. You assert that only your own
book and your thinking is of value. That, of course, is an assertion of no
value.

[Michael Moroney]

On 9/20/2021 9:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>>>
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>
>>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>>>
>>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?

All of it. Except perhaps what you may have copied unchanged from
elsewhere.

>>> A single attractive force
>>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Known to be false since Newton PROVED it to be false.

>>>
>> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
>> more?
>
> Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.

Not an assertion. Newton PROVED that only a single force was needed,
remember?

> Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.

So why do you keep asserting that two forces are needed again and again
and again???

>>
>> Just to remind you of something: Just because you do not understand
>> something does not mean it’s wrong. It just means you’re uneducated in this
>> subject. Completely uneducated and unskilled.

That's correct, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand the topic.
That's because, in part, of your limited third grade math ability.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 17:00:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Not an assertion. Newton PROVED that only a single force was needed,

Ask your idiot gurus, stupid Mike, nothing has ever been
proven in physics.

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:27:30 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip crap>
> >>>>
> >>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> >>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true? A single attractive force
> >>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>
> >> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
> >> more?
> >
> > Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.
> > Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
> You are also unique in believing that physics textbooks and physics
> instruction on these matters are of no value. You assert that only your own
> book and your thinking is of value. That, of course, is an assertion of no
> value.

I said that asserting that gravity is a single attractive force is wrong and that’s why you physicists fail to come up with a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.

[Ken Seto]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 9:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip crap>
> >>>>
> >>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> >>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?
> All of it. Except perhaps what you may have copied unchanged from
> elsewhere.
> >>> A single attractive force
> >>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> Known to be false since Newton PROVED it to be false.
> >>>
> >> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
> >> more?
> >
> > Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.

> Not an assertion. Newton PROVED that only a single force was need.ento the earth,
> remember?t gravity is a single attractive force.
>
It is an assertion to say that gravity is a single attractive force stupid. A single attractive force will cause the moon crash into the earth. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

>
> > Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.

> So why do you keep asseh.rting that two forces are needed again and again

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:27:30 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>>>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true? A single attractive force
>>>>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
>>>> more?
>>>
>>> Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.
>>> Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
>> You are also unique in believing that physics textbooks and physics
>> instruction on these matters are of no value. You assert that only your own
>> book and your thinking is of value. That, of course, is an assertion of no
>> value.
>
> I said that asserting that gravity is a single attractive force is wrong

As someone who is completely unread and unskilled in physics, what you say
is right and wrong is of course laughable.

You have not earned the right to be treated credibly.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 9:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>>>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?
>> All of it. Except perhaps what you may have copied unchanged from
>> elsewhere.
>>>>> A single attractive force
>>>>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>> Known to be false since Newton PROVED it to be false.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
>>>> more?
>>>
>>> Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.
>> Not an assertion. Newton PROVED that only a single force was need.ento the earth,
>> remember?t gravity is a single attractive force.
>>
> It is an assertion to say that gravity is a single attractive force
> stupid. A single attractive force will cause the moon crash into the earth.

No, that last sentence is wrong. This is shown in all first year physics
textbooks. Your response is to say that all first year physics textbooks
are wrong. That is of course a very silly thing for you to say, and you are
a fool for saying it.

> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>
>>> Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
>> So why do you keep asseh.rting that two forces are needed again and again
>> and again???
>>>>
>>>> Just to remind you of something: Just because you do not understand
>>>> something does not mean it’s wrong. It just means you’re uneducated in this
>>>> subject. Completely uneducated and unskilled.
>> That's correct, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand the topic.
>> That's because, in part, of your limited third grade math ability.
>

[Michael Moroney]

On 9/20/2021 5:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 11:00:40 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 9:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 8:44:18 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>>>>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?
>> All of it. Except perhaps what you may have copied unchanged from
>> elsewhere.
>>>>> A single attractive force
>>>>> will cause the moon crash into the earth.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>> Known to be false since Newton PROVED it to be false.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it won’t, and this has been explained to you, what, a hundred times or
>>>> more?
>>>
>>> Your assertion that gravity is a single attractive force has no value.
>> Not an assertion. Newton PROVED that only a single force was need.ento the earth,
>> remember?t gravity is a single attractive force.
>>
> It is an assertion to say that gravity is a single attractive force stupid.

Stupid Ken, once again Newton produced a mathematical PROOF that a
single force can produce stable orbits. It is not an assertion, and no
matter how often you say it is won't change that. It's just you projecting.

> A single attractive force will cause the moon crash into the earth.

That is an ASSERTION. You only assert, that but never provide any sort
of proof of your assertion. (You can't provide one, of course, since
Newton proved that the moon won't crash)

Every freshman physics textbook explains why only a single force is
necessary. You should look at one someday.

>>> Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.

>> So why do you keep asserting that two forces are needed again and again
>> and again???

You didn't answer this, you just garbled it slightly. Why do you keep
asserting your claim if you (rightly) believe assertion is not a valid
argument?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

God creates the Riemann sphere.

[Odd Bodkin]

It must feel unusual knowing that in your decline, you’re going to be known
for ranting about uniform circular motion instead of a theory of
everything.

>
>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>
>>>> Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
>>> So why do you keep asseh.rting that two forces are needed again and again
>>> and again???
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to remind you of something: Just because you do not understand
>>>>> something does not mean it’s wrong. It just means you’re uneducated in this
>>>>> subject. Completely uneducated and unskilled.
>>> That's correct, Stupid Ken. You simply don't understand the topic.
>>> That's because, in part, of your limited third grade math ability.
>>
>
>
>



--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Maciej Wozniak]

Stupid Mike, even if he really did, 100+ mathematical PROOFS
that (for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2) didn't prevent your
idiot guru from claiming that there are right triangles without
the property.
Of course, Newton didn't produce any PROOF. Nothing has been
ever proven in physics.

[Michael Moroney]

On 9/21/2021 12:36 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Of course, Newton didn't produce any PROOF. Nothing has been
> ever proven in physics.
>

Mathematical proof, toilet licker.

Go back to your vodka.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 07:02:32 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 12:36 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > Of course, Newton didn't produce any PROOF. Nothing has been
> > ever proven in physics.
> >
> Mathematical proof, toilet licker.

And which mathematical theory does produce and prove theorems
about a force, stupid Mike?
Of course, even if Newton has really provided a mathematical
proof for anything - 100+ mathematical proofs that (for any

right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2) didn't prevent your idiot guru from
claiming that there are right triangles without the property.

It's really funny when your bunch of idiots invokes the authority
of mathematics, ruined by its childish games.

[Neil Coll]

extreme crank Ken Seto wrote:

> 2. But an attractive force alone is not able the moon to maintain a
> stable orbit around the earth for billions of years. The structure of
> the E-Matrix is divergent. Both the earth and the moon are confined to
> follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are expanding in
> the same direction as the universe expands.This creates a repulsive
> effect between them and this repulsive effect is called the CRE force.

you repugnant bag of rocks. Stop stealing theories from people, something
you dont undrestand. You cretin and an idiot.

[Dono.]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> 100+ mathematical PROOFS
> that (for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2) didn't prevent your
> idiot guru from claiming that there are right triangles without
> the property.
> Of course, Newton didn't produce any PROOF. Nothing has been
> ever proven in physics.

It was Gauss who proved that, toilet water drinker.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Who proved what, poor halfbrain?
That Pythagorean theorem is false?

[Thomas Heger]

The Pythagorean a² + b² = c² for right angled triangles could be
regarded as definition of Euclidean space.

Newton assumed, that 'space' in the sense of 'universe' is Euclidean,
but did not prove that - and the universe most likely isn't.


TH

[Dono.]

Gauss, toilet water drunkard

[Maciej Wozniak]

And what did he prove, poor halfbrain? Did he prove that
Pythagorean theory is false? Really?
Maybe he just proved that we "can consider such a possibility"?

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:31:00 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 07:22:48 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 6:59:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 15:18:17 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 100+ mathematical PROOFS
> > > > > that (for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2) didn't prevent your
> > > > > idiot guru from claiming that there are right triangles without
> > > > > the property.
> > > > > Of course, Newton didn't produce any PROOF. Nothing has been
> > > > > ever proven in physics.
> > > > It was Gauss who proved that, toilet water drinker.
> > > Who proved what,
> > Gauss, toilet water drunkard

> Did he prove that
> Pythagorean theory is false? Really?

Yep, he did: https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/p/Pythagorean_theorem.htm

You need to stop drinking and eating from toilets, Wozniak

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 07:50:36 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:31:00 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 at 07:22:48 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 6:59:37 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 15:18:17 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > 100+ mathematical PROOFS
> > > > > > that (for any right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2) didn't prevent your
> > > > > > idiot guru from claiming that there are right triangles without
> > > > > > the property.
> > > > > > Of course, Newton didn't produce any PROOF. Nothing has been
> > > > > > ever proven in physics.
> > > > > It was Gauss who proved that, toilet water drinker.
> > > > Who proved what,
> > > Gauss, toilet water drunkard
> > Did he prove that
> > Pythagorean theory is false? Really?
> Yep, he did

Buhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahaha. You really
should leave your bottle of vodka, Dono. At least for a
moment.

[JanPB]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 3:18:42 AM UTC-7, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > Gravity is a composite force as follows:
> >
> > <snip crap>
> >
> > Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> > We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?

Pretty much all of it. It's just an armchair doodle fantasy, nothing more.

--
Jan

[Ruben Pike]

JanPB wrote:
>> > > Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>> >
>> > <snip crap>
>> > Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's
>> > true?
>> > We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?
>
> Pretty much all of it. It's just an armchair doodle fantasy, nothing
> more.

he stole everything in it. This disgusting sob.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:55:35 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> On 9/19/2021 10:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> Gravity is a composite force as follows:
>>
>> <snip crap>
>>
>> Stupid Lying Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>> We’ve understood orbits needing just a single force since Newton.
>
> Moron, what part of my theory is not true?

The claim that it’s a physics theory for one.
The claim that it’s a valid theory for another.

>



--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables