On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>> What is the cause of gravity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
> >>>>> Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on
> >>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why
> >>>>> the interacting objects are attracted to each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and
> >>>> described it in terms of a physical field.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
> >>>>> GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
> >>>>> that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting
> >>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because
> >>>>> spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a
> >>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
> >>>> known for centuries.
> >>>
> >>> If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is
> >>> not a valid description.
> >>
> >> Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
> >> to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come
> >> here. They never have. Books are the only option.
> >
> > Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
> Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
> >>>>> The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
> >>>>> objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton.
> >>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities
> >>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.
> >>>>
> >>>> This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
> >>>> not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.
> >>>
> >>> Why they are not adopted by physicists?
> >>
> >> They ARE! Catch up.
> >
> > More bull shit.
> Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
> >>>>> A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> >>>>> DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of
> >>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a
> >>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of
> >>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
> >>>>> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the
> >>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
> >>>>> opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
> >>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That
> >>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a
> >>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
> >>>>> is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
> >>>> theory. So yours is not a theory.
> >>>
> >>> You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
> >>> the cause of gravity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
> >> Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.
> >
> > No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.
> >
> I HAVE. You have not.
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:07:32 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> What is the cause of gravity?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
> > >>>>> Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on
> > >>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why
> > >>>>> the interacting objects are attracted to each other.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and
> > >>>> described it in terms of a physical field.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
> > >>>>> GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
> > >>>>> that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting
> > >>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because
> > >>>>> spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a
> > >>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
> > >>>> known for centuries.
> > >>>
> > >>> If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is
> > >>> not a valid description.
> > >>
> > >> Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
> > >> to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come
> > >> here. They never have. Books are the only option.
> > >
> > > Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
> > Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
> > >>>>> The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
> > >>>>> objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton.
> > >>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities
> > >>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
> > >>>> not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why they are not adopted by physicists?
> > >>
> > >> They ARE! Catch up.
> > >
> > > More bull shit.
> > Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
> > >>>>> A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
> > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > >>>>> DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of
> > >>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a
> > >>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of
> > >>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.

Expanding Earth is found wrong.

> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
> > >>>>> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the
> > >>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
> > >>>>> opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.

What is the strength of the two forces in light?

> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
> > >>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That
> > >>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a
> > >>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
> > >>>>> is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
> > >>>> theory. So yours is not a theory.
> > >>>
> > >>> You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
> > >>> the cause of gravity.

What more do you know?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
> > >> Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.
Go back to your books then...
> > > No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory.....look it up idiot.
> > >
> > I HAVE. You have not.
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

God creates gravity not mass.
Mass does not always curve space time in theory.
Einstein did not explain that.

On 8/26/2023 7:07 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> What is the cause of gravity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
>>>>>>> Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on
>>>>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why
>>>>>>> the interacting objects are attracted to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and
>>>>>> described it in terms of a physical field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
>>>>>>> GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
>>>>>>> that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting
>>>>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because
>>>>>>> spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a
>>>>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
>>>>>> known for centuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is
>>>>> not a valid description.
>>>>
>>>> Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
>>>> to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come
>>>> here. They never have. Books are the only option.
>>>
>>> Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
>> Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
>>>>>>> The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
>>>>>>> objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton.
>>>>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities
>>>>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
>>>>>> not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why they are not adopted by physicists?
>>>>
>>>> They ARE! Catch up.
>>>
>>> More bull shit.
>> Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
>>>>>>> A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>> DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of
>>>>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a
>>>>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of
>>>>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
>>>>>>> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the
>>>>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
>>>>>>> opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
>>>>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That
>>>>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a
>>>>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
>>>>>>> is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
>>>>>> theory. So yours is not a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
>>>>> the cause of gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
>>>> Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.
>>>
>>> No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.
>>>
>> I HAVE. You have not.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkYYE6hmjg

whodat!

On 8/26/2023 7:07 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> What is the cause of gravity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Attempts to answer this questions are as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Newton’s gravitational theory:
>>>>>>> Newton’s gravitation equation describes the effects of gravity on
>>>>>>> interacting objects. But he had no clue on the cause of gravity, on why
>>>>>>> the interacting objects are attracted to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However many right after him, including Gauss stepped in for Newton and
>>>>>> described it in terms of a physical field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Einstein’s gravitational theory, the General Relativity Theory (GRT):
>>>>>>> GRT says that interacting objects follows the curvature of space-time but
>>>>>>> that is just a description the path being followed by the interacting
>>>>>>> objects. No cause why objects follow the curvature of spacetime because
>>>>>>> spacetime is not a material medium. It is a math construct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. The spacetime that GR models is a physical entity, not just a
>>>>>> math construct. Not everything that is physical is material. This has been
>>>>>> known for centuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> If spacetime is a physical entity, please describe....BTW, assertion is
>>>>> not a valid description.
>>>>
>>>> Ken, that just isn’t going to happen on a newsgroup. All you are ever going
>>>> to get on Usenet are short, undetailed responses. Explanations do not come
>>>> here. They never have. Books are the only option.
>>>
>>> Of course not....all you do is making bull shit assertions.
>> Because this is not the place to learn basic stuff like this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Quantum field theory of graviton:
>>>>>>> The Quantum field theory of gravity says that gravity between interacting
>>>>>>> objects is mediated by the hypothetical particle called the graviton.
>>>>>>> However the equations of graviton give rise to all sorts of infinities
>>>>>>> and thus they are not normalizable to give GRT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn’t entirely accurate either. There are graviton theories which are
>>>>>> not customary QFTs but which exhibit no infinities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why they are not adopted by physicists?
>>>>
>>>> They ARE! Catch up.
>>>
>>> More bull shit.
>> Nope! You are WAY behind the times. Read.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Model Mechanics theory of gravity, the DTG:
>>>>>>> A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>> DTG posits that gravity is a composite force and that the causes of
>>>>>>> gravity between the earth and the moon are as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in a
>>>>>>> structured and elastic medium, called the E-Matrix, occupying all of
>>>>>>> space as the universe expands. This causes an attractive EM force between them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are
>>>>>>> confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the
>>>>>>> universe expands. This gives rise to a repulsive effect (force) between them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Newton’s Gravity force equation is the combined result of the above
>>>>>>> opposing forces. That's why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. As you can see the combination of these opposing forces is the reason
>>>>>>> why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. That
>>>>>>> means that the assertion by physicists in this NG that gravity is a
>>>>>>> single attractive force and that this single attractive force of gravity
>>>>>>> is enabling the moon to maintain a stable orbit around the earth is a bogus assertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your idea has no calculations of any numbers, which is a prerequisite of a
>>>>>> theory. So yours is not a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. In any case I present
>>>>> the cause of gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, YOU don’t know the meaning of a theory. Remember, you’ve read NOTHING.
>>>> Remember, you don’t even know how the scientific method works.
>>>
>>> No, it is you who don’t know the meaning of the word theory....look it up idiot.
>>>
>> I HAVE. You have not.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Odd One: you die in 2023 !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkYYE6hmjg

whodat!