Discussion:
The cause of gravity
(too old to reply)
Ken Seto
2021-09-19 14:49:48 UTC
Permalink
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.

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.modelmechancs.org/2015gravity.pdf
Michael Moroney
2021-09-19 14:55:32 UTC
Permalink
<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.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-19 15:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Stupid Mike, you're outdated. Your idiot guru has shown
what you're saying is just a common sense prejudice.
Ken Seto
2021-09-20 10:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-20 12:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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?

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
2021-09-20 13:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-20 13:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-09-20 20:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-20 21:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
and that’s why you physicists fail to come up with a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-09-20 15:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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?
Post by Ken Seto
Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
So why do you keep asserting that two forces are needed again and again
and again???
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
2021-09-20 15:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
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
2021-09-20 21:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
So why do you keep asseh.rting that two forces are needed again and again
and again???
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
2021-09-20 21:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Post by Ken Seto
Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
So why do you keep asseh.rting that two forces are needed again and again
and again???
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-21 02:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
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.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Post by Ken Seto
Remember: Assertion is not a valid argument.
So why do you keep asseh.rting that two forces are needed again and again
and again???
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
Michael Moroney
2021-09-20 22:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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.
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
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?
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-21 04:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
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
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
2021-09-21 05:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
2021-09-21 05:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Dono.
2021-09-21 13:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
2021-09-21 13:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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, poor halfbrain?
That Pythagorean theorem is false?
Thomas Heger
2021-09-22 05:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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, poor halfbrain?
That Pythagorean theorem is false?
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.
2021-09-22 05:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-22 05:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
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.
2021-09-22 05:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
2021-09-22 05:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
2021-09-23 13:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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
2021-09-23 19:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JanPB
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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
2021-09-23 19:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
<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
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-21 01:35:16 UTC
Permalink
God creates the Riemann sphere.
Mitch Muma
2021-09-19 15:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Neil Coll
2021-09-21 12:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
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.
Loading...